Mass Immigration Is a Tea Party Issue

            The “Tea Party” movement still appears to be going strong. Groups of Tea Party activists are now planning an April 15^th rally in Washington. That day, the deadline for filing income taxes, is symbolic of the movement’s opposition to the federal government’s reckless policies of tax and spend.

            Immigration has not been a prominent issue among Tea Party activists, but it should be. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are net loss to native-born taxpayers. A significant reason is that we have an immigration policy which is, in the words of researcher Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation, “importing poverty.” As a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found, “In 2008, 58 percent of all households headed by an immigrant [legal or illegal] with one or more children under age 18 used at least one welfare program, compared [with] 36 percent for native households with children.”

            Our legal immigration system places most of its emphasis on admitting people with family connections to previous immigrants, rather than emphasizing skills. The consequence is a flow of immigrants who are, on average, less educated and less skilled than the native-born, and are thus more likely than the native-born to receive public assistance. Our system is supposed to prevent immigrants from becoming public charges, by requiring their sponsors to be responsible for them, but this provision is seldom if ever enforced.

            And the little screening we do for self-supporting legal immigrants of course doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants. They come solely on the basis of their needs, not ours.

            The most extensive research, to date, on the financial costs and benefits of immigration (legal and illegal) was the 1997 study conducted by the National Research Council. While it found that low-wage immigration was beneficial to some economic interests, it was a net loss of between $15 and $20 billion a year to taxpayers. With the foreign-born population now much higher then it was thirteen years ago, the loss is probably much greater.

            Thus it would seem that immigration is a natural issue for Tea Party people to raise. Unfortunately, there are some people who don’t want them to make this connection. One is former Republican Congressman Dick Armey who has stepped forward as a spokesman of the Tea Party Movement. While in Congress, Armey proved himself a loyal ally of the cheap-labor open-borders interests.

            Recently, Armey attacked former Congressman Tom Tancredo who has stepped forward as a Tea Party advocate. Tancredo advocates less immigration and strict enforcement of immigration laws. For this reason, Armey has tried to push Tancredo out of the movement by labeling his views as “uncharitable and mean-spirited.” Given Armey’s proven charity toward open-border profiteers, one hopes that Tea Party supporters will see the proper side to support.

            AIC supporters, consider getting involved in the Tea Party movement. Make your voice heard, and place your concerns on the agenda. Our dysfunctional immigration policies are a big part of what is wrong with America today.    

Amnesty Is Still on This Year’s Agenda

 
            AIC’s contacts in Washington recently have informed us that the Obama Administration has not given up on trying to pass a major amnesty for illegal aliens this year. Confirming our sources is an article in the Los Angeles Times 3/4/10. “Despite steep odds,” it states, “the White House has discussed a major overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. . . . [to include] a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people illegally.”

            The article quotes White House spokesman Nick Shapiro who stated that President Obama’s support for amnesty is “unwavering.” To advance his agenda, Obama scheduled a meeting with the Senate’s leading proponents of amnesty, Democrat Charles Schumer and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, to formulate a bipartisan strategy.

            The Times article also notes that “Among proponents, there is a consensus that a proposal must move by April or early May to have a realistic chance of passing this year. If that deadline slips, Congress’ focus is likely to shift to the November elections, making it impossible to take up major legislation.”

            And certainly amnesty supporters should have concern about having to face the voters. A recent Rasmussen poll found great public outrage against illegal immigration. Sixty-nine percent believe that illegal aliens should be prosecuted, and 68 percent said that businesses hiring them should be prosecuted. Significantly, a majority, 65 percent, said they preferred an “enforcement-only” approach to illegal immigration rather than amnesty. Apparently the hope of the administration is to pass amnesty, and hope that voters are too dull and apathetic to remember in November.

The rank-and-file amnesty advocates appear confident that they can overcome the odds. Deepak Bhargava of the radical left Center for Community Change laments the failure of amnesty legislation in 2007 which he attributes to “a groundswell of anger and hate” incited by talk radio. As with so many of his persuasion, there can never be any honest disagreement with his position, only “hate.” This time, says Bhargava, “we [will] out-match [the opposition] at every level and in every facet of the game.”

Genuine immigration reformers must rise to this challenge and exceed it. At least through the end of May we must let Congress know that amnesty is unacceptable under any circumstances, but particularly now with so many Americans out of work. The last thing we need to do is reward people with jobs who have taken those jobs illegally.

If we can stop amnesty this spring, we can stop it for the rest of the year. If we can stop amnesty for just a few more years, perhaps we can kill the idea permanently.

Immigrants Significantly Use Welfare  

            Frank Sharry is a radical immigration activist with a weak grasp of truth. Sharry, who heads something called “America’s Voice,” recently claimed that “immigrants tend to be hard-working family people who eschew welfare when possible (not to mention that undocumented immigrants [i.e., illegal aliens] don’t qualify for welfare. . . .).”

            Reality check: Figures from the March 2009 Current Population Survey of the Census Bureau show widespread use of public assistance by immigrants. Citing those figures in a recent report, Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, observed:

            “In 2008, 58 percent of all households headed by an immigrant [legal or illegal] with one or more children under age 18 used at least one welfare program, compared [with] 36 percent for native households with children. . . . High immigrant welfare use is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of immigrant households with children, almost one in three is headed by someone who did not graduate from high school, compared [with] one out of ten for native born households with children.”

            With respect to illegal immigrants, it is true that they are barred from most welfare programs, but not all. One they get is Earned Income Tax Credit, basically a refund on taxes greater than the taxes paid. Also, their American born children, as citizens, are eligible for all welfare programs—a definite benefit for the parents. And in some instances, they can obtain public housing.  

            Illegals also make extensive use of free medical care at emergency rooms and other facilities. Often they receive free prenatal care and delivery. Many pregnant women illegally come to the United States specifically to enjoy the latter benefits. When the children reach school age, they can go to school—free day care for the parents—and receive free meals. Legal immigrants are entitled to public schooling, but the Supreme Court ruling that gave this right to illegal aliens is highly questionable. 

            Immigration enthusiasts like to claim that immigration today is really no different from immigration in the past. That’s not true on any number counts. One of the most significant is that immigrants in the previous Great Wave had few public programs to rely on. Often, because they couldn’t make it here in America, as many as 40 percent of them returned to their home countries. Today few go home, and the generosity of our public assistance surely has something to do with it.           

A Race to Watch: Hayworth vs McCain

Immigration will be a significant issue in a number of upcoming political races this year. One of the more interesting ones will be the Republican Senate primary in August, pitting four-term incumbent Sen. John McCain against former Arizona House member J.D. Hayworth. On the issue of how to deal with illegal immigration, the divide between the two candidates could not be more striking.

For decades McCain has endorsed amnesty for illegal aliens. When the first amnesty passed in 1986, granting legal status and the path to citizenship to three million illegal aliens, McCain was among the few Republicans who endorsed it. He also has  opposed steps to crackdown on illegal immigrants, such as Arizona’s Proposition 400. That measure, approved by popular vote in 2004, required people in the state to produce proof of citizenship before receiving public benefits.

In 2006 and 2007, McCain worked closely in the Senate with Democrat Edward Kennedy to pass an amnesty for ten million or more illegal aliens. Both attempts failed due to strong opposition from the public.

When McCain ran for president in 2008, McCain muted some of his pro-amnesty rhetoric, but many observers noted his appointment of Juan Hernandez as his campaign director for Hispanic outreach. Hernandez, who holds dual American and Mexican citizenship, once served in the government of Mexican President Vicente Fox. On one occasion, Hernandez stated that illegal immigration from Mexico helped to increase the influence of the Mexican government in the United States.

J.D. Hayworth strongly opposed the 2006 and 2007 amnesties. He has long maintained that rewarding lawbreaking encourages more of it. Recently he charged the Obama Administration with doing too little to secure the border. Said Hayworth, “It’s unconscionable [that] we spent almost a decade after 9/11 and have failed to protect our border.”

A poll done last November showed Hayworth almost even with McCain. But a subsequent poll, following Sarah Palin’s endorsement of McCain, showed the incumbent senator in the lead. Palin, like McCain, supports amnesty. 

McCain incumbency and fundraising abilities give him a considerable edge in the campaign, but a number of commentators believe that Hayworth’s stand on illegal immigration can make him an effective contender.                 

Obama Misleads on Enforcement                                 

            The Obama Administration likes to claim that it is making great strides to secure the border and curtail illegal immigration. That is truly far from the case. The administration makes this false claim because it wants Americans to believe that illegal immigration is under control so that giving amnesty to illegal aliens now living in the U.S. won’t seem like such a bad idea.

            So what is false about the administration’s claim? Well, let’s take it from the top. By the admission of its own Department of Homeland Security, only 697 miles of our 1,969 mile border with Mexico are “effectively controlled.” That’s just 35 percent, which means that 65 percent is not “effectively controlled.”

Is President Obama concerned about this problem? Evidently he’s not, because in his recently announced budget he proposed a reduction of the Border Patrol by 180 agents. That budget also called for a substantial reduction in the Secure Border Initiative program which has funded construction of fences and other steps to make the border more secure.

And along with the administration’s apparent lack of concern about the border, it also fails to give proper attention to internal enforcement against illegal immigration. To cite another example from the budget, the president wants to reduce the US-VISIT program, which allows tracking of temporary visa holders to make sure that they leave the country.

From its beginning, the administration has undermined internal enforcement in a variety of ways. It ended the “no match” Social Security letters, which informed employers of workers who did not have valid Social Security numbers. This was an effective means to identify illegal aliens holding jobs. Furthermore, the administration has been lax on deporting criminal illegal aliens, i.e., illegals who have committed crimes other than breaking our immigration laws. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) that these deportations have declined 60 percent under Obama.

The administration claims that it is cracking down on employment of illegals by auditing businesses that appear to be hiring them. These audits have caused some businesses to terminate illegal workers, but the government is not deporting them. As a consequence they are free to stay in the U.S. and find other jobs—jobs that many unemployed Americans desperately need. This alleged “improvement” of enforcement is more for show than anything else.

Americans must be skeptical of just about everything the administration says about immigration. Its track record leaves us little other choice.                     

The Monitor Makes the Right Connection

         The “mainstream” media are generally doing everything in their power to keep Americans from making a very simple connection. It’s simply this: With ten percent of Americans out of work we’re still being flooded with immigrants and people with temporary visas. And on top of that, the Obama Administration is weakening even the minimal immigration law enforcement we had under the Bush Administration—which means that most of the eight million illegal aliens holding American jobs will keep on holding them. And all the while, more illegal aliens will keep coming in.

            One recent and notable exception to the media blackout on the connection between American unemployment and the admission of foreign workers was an article in The Christian Science Monitor (2/2/10) by reporter David Francis. The article, which focused on the H-2B temporary visa program, began observing that “About 15 million Americans are unemployed. Yet Washington allows businesses to bring in about 1 million foreigners a year to take supposedly short-term jobs that many jobless would leap at taking if they could.”

            Quoted in the piece was David Seminara, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, who recently completed a study of the H-2B program. He said that it is based on the “flawed assumption” that “Americans don’t want to mow your lawn. . . . They won’t drive the trucks that bring food to the grocery store.” The reason businesses like to hire foreigners under H-2B, said Mark Kikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, is that the foreigners—who want to stay in the U.S.—“will shut up and do what they are told.”

            One reason that the media tend to keep silent about U.S. unemployment and the foreign influx, many suggest, is that the businesses that benefit from the influx provide advertising to the media. Not wishing to offend their providers, many journalists don’t want to shine a light on what they’re doing—despite the pain of their unemployed fellow citizens.

            The best hope for American workers is to pass the word around about what is happening, using the Internet and other means to bypass the mass media’s curtain of silence. Then they must tell Washington, in one loud and unified voice: “Cut immigration, cut temporary visas, and enforce the law—so that we can have jobs.”                 

Amnesty Will Raise Wages—And Pigs Will Fly Too!

The Center for American Progress (CAP) is typical of mass immigration advocacy groups in being either delusional or dishonest—or possibly both. Recently, it published an article promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, which it disingenuously describes as “immigration reform.”

According to CAP, granting amnesty to illegal aliens will “promote economic growth.” To bolster this conclusion, it cites a study which claims that amnesty will add $1.5 trillion to the economy over the next 10 years by raising wage levels of all workers! By coincidence, it just so happens that CAP was one of the sponsors of this so-called study.

Certainly when the illegals become legal they can move to better paying jobs, but what will happen to the wages of Americans who now hold those jobs? Are we supposed to believe that someone has repealed the law of supply and demand? Since no one has, that means those wages will go down. And once the illegals abandon their low-paying jobs, a new wave of illegals will arrive to take them again. By rewarding lawbreaking, we just get more of it. It’s happened after every past amnesty. And the newcomers will keep the wages of low-paying jobs low—to the detriment of disadvantaged Americans who also do those jobs.

If we want to raise wages, a good way would be to encourage eight million illegal workers to go home. That would force employers to pay higher salaries to American workers. Again, it’s the law of supply and demand.

Economics aside, CAP claims that most Americans favor amnesty, and cite polls to this effect. It doesn’t reveal, however, that these polls only give two alternatives: amnesty or mass deportations. The polls yield the desired result by not offering a third option, namely, attrition. This is the strategy to gradually tightening immigration law enforcement so that life for illegal aliens in the United States becomes increasingly difficult. In this situation, many or most illegals will leave on their own accord. This is what happened in 1954 under President Eisenhower, the only time when the U.S. seriously applied enforcement.

When attrition is offered as an option in polling, more Americans choose it than amnesty or mass deportations.

The CAP brazenly claims that “The American public wants its leaders to quit playing politics” and pass an amnesty. What we really need to quit is politics-as-usual, which allows the pro-amnesty lobbies of cheap labor and cheap votes to thwart the will of the American public.   

Help Haitians in Haiti—Don’t Bring Them Here

            The earthquake that killed as many as 200,000 Haitians was a terrible tragedy. As is usually the case when a major disaster strikes anywhere in the world, America has been the leader in providing assistance. So far, our country, among the other nations of the world, has provided more than 28 percent of the financial assistance given Haiti, and our military is playing a key role in maintaining order. Also, private American citizens have been extremely generous in contributing to the stricken country. All of this generosity comes at a time when our country is hurting economically. 

            These points we should keep in mind when we will hear—as surely we will—that our compassion is lacking if we do not open our doors to all the Haitians who want to leave their country. Already rumors are going around that many Haitians are on their way. Now is the time for Americans to make it clear that there are limits to our generosity. We do ourselves no favor when we spread the idea that misfortune abroad is a ticket to come here, and we do others no favor either when we encourage that idea.

            The tsunami that struck Indonesia in 2004 was at least as devastating to the island of Sumatra as the Haitian earthquake. And then, as usual, America helped, but we didn’t deem it necessary to bring in Indonesians. One reason is that they don’t have a significant community and advocates in the U.S. Without an easy escape from their plight, the Indonesians set to work rebuilding.

            There is, however, a Haitian community in the U.S., thanks to past immigration, and its members and their advocates can be counted on to promote an exodus from Haiti—and to oppose deportation of Haitian illegal aliens. The Obama Administration has already announced that the 30,000 Haitian illegals slated for deportation before the earthquake will now be allowed to remain in the United States for 18 months under “temporary protected status.” The Department of Homeland Security estimates that between 100,000 and 200,000 Haitian illegals reside in the U.S.

            In practical terms, this decision means that the 30,000 and many of the rest may never go home. Defenders of the policy claim it is humanitarian. But as Rep. Steve King (R-IA) observed, “This sounds to me like open borders advocates exercising the Rahm Emmanuel axiom: ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste.’” Another point King noted was that with so great a loss of life in Haiti, the country could use some extra hands to help rebuild.

            In the end, there is only so much that we can do for Haiti. It will never improve if its people believe that running away is the answer to their problems.                 

Amnesty Supporters Think They’re Rocky

            In the movie Rocky, the boxing champ Apollo Creed laughed that Rocky, his challenger, had no chance to win. The problem with that, as the movie revealed, was that Rocky didn’t know that. It’s a lesson that might apply to the politics of immigration, specifically the upcoming amnesty legislation.

Much conventional wisdom has it that a major amnesty bill can’t pass this year because there is too much risk to the Democrats, with elections ahead in November, to try to ram through such an unpopular measure—one that would allow illegal aliens to keep their U.S. jobs—when so many Americans are out of work. And this conventional wisdom could well be right. Let’s hope so.

But let’s not neglect to consider that amnesty advocates are hungry and determined. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was a major group that spearheaded the failed amnesty legislation in 2007. Its executive vice president Eliseo Medina recently stated, “We’re in much, much, much better condition than we were in 2007. We have a united labor movement, and we have, I think, a tighter-knit network of immigrant rights advocates, organizations, churches and others around the country.”

Amnesty advocate Tamar Jacoby had this to say about the pro-amnesty left: “[T]hey’ve had unprecedented amounts of money in the past year, and they’re organizing the field, coordinating among themselves, they’re unrecognizable almost from what they were in 2006 and 2007.” A shill for cheap labor business interests, Jacoby lamented that these interests aren’t organized quite as well for amnesty, but are playing “a different level of the game” than before.

The Democrat leadership may indeed favor caution for now, but if it appears likely that the party will suffer a political wipeout in November no matter what it does—a distinct possibility—it might opt to go for broke to pass amnesty. The aim would be to take a loss now with the hope of securing a future voting bloc of amnestied illegals.

In any case, the amnesty lobbies are pushing their agenda with unrelenting zeal. One of their goals is to intimidate leading individuals and organizations against amnesty who helped guide and direct the public outrage that stopped amnesty in 2006 and 2007. Amnesty advocates are still crowing over their success in pushing CNN commentator Lou Dobbs off the air.

AIC will not be intimidated by this strategy, and we urge our supporters to close ranks against it. No matter who or what our opponents think they are, we will go the distance against them, and try for a knockout all the way.                  

Amnesty Opponents Shouldn’t Relax

            AIC’s Washington liaison called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to inquire why hearings on the health bill care are being held in secret. He wanted to know what restraints the legislation will have against illegal aliens using the health system. About the secrecy, Pelosi’s aide replied, “We can do anything we want.”

            This attitude of the Democratic leadership may give cause to pause to true  immigration reformers who oppose amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens now living in the U.S. Many Washington observers believe that the announced intention of Democratic leaders to pass amnesty is more smoke than fire. They are doing it, the observers maintain, to placate the Hispanic Caucus and other amnesty supporters, but they are not serious about trying to pass an amnesty this year. The reason is that it would be too costly to the Democrats, with the election coming up in November. With unemployment as high as it is, allowing illegal aliens to stay and keep the jobs they have would not appeal to many voters.

            The commentators may indeed be right, but possibly they aren’t. It may be that the progress of the health legislation has emboldened Pelosi and other key Democrats to think that they can indeed do anything they want. And the prospect of electoral losses may not deter them.

            The leftist radicals within the party, one may assume, are familiar with the Marxist strategy of “one step back, two steps forward.” Basically this would consist of accepting significant losses in November—while planning for greater gains later on. The plan might follow the reasoning of prominent Democratic strategist Robert Creamer. He maintains that the party should make amnesty a high priority because once the amnesty is passed and its recipients get citizenship, the party will have a large new bloc of grateful voters. They and a certain percentage of naturalized legal immigrants, he believes, can give the Democrats a permanent lock on American politics.

            Of course there will be a number of Democrats in the House and Senate who won’t like the idea of having to sacrifice themselves for the future. But maybe the party’s leadership can ease their anguish holding out the possibility of cushy jobs in the federal bureaucracy if they lose their seats in Congress. People who think they can “do anything” they want are probably game to try anything.

            Passage of a major amnesty certainly won’t be easy this year. But amnesty opponents should think twice before relaxing too much.                

Church Leaders Don’t Speak for Rank and File

             
            Amnesty advocates have worked hard to enlist organized religion in their campaign to reward foreigners who break our immigration laws. Although lawlessness is not exactly a Christian virtue, their aim is to give the impression that God is on the side of amnesty. Unfortunately, quite a number of high level ecclesiastical bureaucrats have signed up.

            The Catholic Conference of Bishops and leaders of mainline Protestant denominations have encouraged their memberships to send Congress post cards in support of amnesty. And last October the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which claims to represent most conservative Protestant churches, came out for amnesty.  (Interestingly, however, only 13 of the NAE’s 42 member denominations actually signed the statement.)

            The amnesty lobby would have us believe that what these religious leaders think is representative of what the millions of rank and file church members think. The lobby hopes to send the message to congressmen that plenty of good Christian voters will endorse them for re-election if they pass an amnesty bill.

            But these amnesty advocates are peddling a very false impression—as shown by a recent Zogby poll, a survey of 42,026 adults, one of the largest polls on immigration ever done. The poll asked members of different religious groups what policy should be applied toward illegal immigrants: tighten law enforcement to encourage them to go home, or grant them a conditional pathway to citizenship (amnesty).

            The results were as follows: Sixty-four percent of Catholics favored enforcement; 23 percent were for amnesty. Among mainline Protestants, 64 percent were for enforcement; 24 percent for amnesty. Seventy-six percent of evangelical Protestants backed enforcement, and 12 percent supported amnesty. The poll also surveyed Jewish attitudes. Forty-three percent of Jews supported enforcement; 40 percent were for amnesty.

Another question asked if immigration in general is too high. Sixty-nine percent of Catholics said it was too high; four percent too low; and 14 percent just right. Seventy-two percent of mainline Protestants said it was too high; two percent too low; and 11 percent just right. Seventy-eight percent of evangelicals said too high; two percent said too low; and nine percent just right. Among Jews the percentages were: 50 percent too high; five percent too low; and 22 percent just right.

When religious leaders speak for amnesty in particular and mass immigration in general, it’s clear that they are speaking pretty much for themselves. They aren’t speaking for most of the people in their congregations, and they make a very poor case that they speak for God.     

Immigration Moratorium Is a Goode Idea

            Recently Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), and with 20 other congressmen, called for effective enforcement of immigration laws to free up for American citizens the jobs held by eight million illegal aliens who now work in this country. “With a 10 percent unemployment rate,” said Smith, “now is the time for the Obama Administration to stand up for citizens and legal immigrant workers.”

            One who agrees is former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode. “But,” said Goode, “we need to go a step further to protect displaced American workers. . . . The first priority . . .  needs to be the interests of American citizens—both native born and naturalized—not “legal immigrant workers”. . . . Even if we completely stopped illegal immigration tomorrow, the government still issues 75,000 permanent work visas and approximately 50,000 temporary work visas every month. These 125,000 jobs should go to Americans first.”

            The proper response now, Goode affirmed, is a “moratorium” on immigration. He added that this would not include spouses of citizens, people with extraordinary skills, and a few other special categories, but it would cut off employment based immigration until “Americans are back on their feet.”

            Goode lamented that since the beginning of the current economic crisis, there has been scarcely any discussion of this idea, one which he described as “just plain old common sense.” With so many Americans without jobs, said Goode, “no one can say with a straight face that immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.”

            Once a moratorium is in place, the former congressman stated, it would be appropriate to reassess our entire immigration policy. Presently it is the consequence and logical extension of the 1965 immigration act. One of its leading sponsors, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), sold it with false promises, claiming it would not “cause American workers to lose their jobs” . . . and “our cities [would] not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

            The vested interests behind mass immigration, those for cheap votes and cheap labor, know very well that a moratorium is an obvious remedy for American workers. But they want no discussion of this remedy because they are totally indifferent to the suffering for their fellow citizens. The silence will prevail until jobless Americans and those concerned about them raise their voices and refuse to be quiet.           

The Gutierrez Bill—It’s Awful

            Many immigration restrictionists predicted that Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s long-awaited amnesty bill would be awful, and they were not disappointed. In point of fact, it’s considerably worse than the amnesty bills that failed in 2006 and 2007. The Gutierrez bill is even more lenient in penalties illegals would have to pay than those of the former bills. They offered what critics derisively called “wrist slaps.” Gutierrez’s measure is more on the order of “wrist taps”—such as the trivial $500 fine illegals would have to pay for a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

            The new bill also would go a long way to eliminate what little effective enforcement of immigration laws we have now. It would abolish the popular 287 (g) program which allows local and state police agencies to assist federal enforcement of those laws, and replace the proven E-verify system, which determines the legal status of workers, with an untested verification system. It would not add more Border Patrol agents or fencing.

            Gutierrez and the rest of the amnesty gang barely seem to notice that they want to ensure jobs for foreign lawbreakers while so many American citizens are out of work. One who did take note was Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a leading amnesty opponent in the House. Said Smith, “With 15 million Americans out of work, it’s hard to believe that anyone would give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants. Even the open-borders crowd agrees that illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers, particularly poor and disadvantaged citizens and legal immigrants.”

            On top of amnesty, the Gutierrez bill would open the doors to 100,000 guest workers a year who could later petition to become permanent residents and citizens. Interestingly, this proposal has caused a rift in the pervious amnesty alliance of Democrats wanting cheap votes and Republicans wanting cheap labor. The Republicans say that the 100,000 is not enough. They want even more, and they won’t support a bill that doesn’t adequately feed their greed. As the two factions fight, patriotic American can enjoy the fracas from the sidelines.

            This legislation is so bad that many observers say it has no chance of passage. That may be, but some observers see it as part of a strategy which could prove successful. In this scenario, the bills takes a lot of flack, and the amnesty lobby responds by offering what it claims is more moderate legislation. By presenting an “improved” bill—perhaps what they really figured all along was the best they could get—they may hope to pass it.

            The point to keep in mind is that no amnesty legislation is acceptable. And if the politicians can’t understand this, the American people—once again—will have to remind them. 

The Refugee Racket Thrives

 

            The massive flow of immigrants into America continues unabated, despite the huge numbers of unemployed Americans who most assuredly don’t need the extra competition for employment. And one category of immigration, refugees, has actually been increasing.

            This year the U.S. took in 75,000 refugees, notes writer Don Barnett in the Tennessean (Nashville) 12/9/09. This is the highest number of admissions since 2001, and a total three times higher than the rest of the developed countries combined. Barnet, an expert of refugee resettlement, observes that most people who come to America claiming to be refugees are not people fleeing immediate danger and persecution. Far more often they are simply claiming to be refugees in order to improve their economic situation.

            Significantly too, 95 percent of the refugees coming to the U.S. are not selected by our government, but instead are referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Because of this, says Barnett, “the U.N. is effectively dictating much of U.S. immigration policy.” The refugees, he explains, encourage flows of their relatives to come to the U.S.

            Refugee resettlement is highly profitable, says Barnett, for “hundreds of taxpayer-funded organizations.” The largest of these is Catholic Charities and its parent the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Sixty-five percent of Catholic Charities’ budget comes from government sources, i.e., taxpayers. But the subsidies from taxpayers don’t stop there. Refugees, unlike other immigrants, are eligible for welfare as soon as they arrive.

            Lately it appears that the refugee industry is trying to place as many refugees as possible in our country’s heartland in order to promote their ideological agendas of  “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” This is often done without considering the interests, capacities, or the general consent of the receiving communities.

            The agencies commonly try to get their way by manipulating the theme of compassion. What they don’t let anyone know about is their financial interest in refugee planting. Americans across the country are growing wise to this “refugee racket” and are putting up resistance when their communities are caught in the cross hairs of resettlement schemes. Those who advocate charity might consider—especially in times like these—that charity begins at home.           

Illegal Alien Advocates Plot Strategy

            Illegal alien advocates recently met at Columbia University to plot amnesty for illegal immigrants next year. They expressed no concern about what the granting of legal status to illegal immigrants now holding American jobs would do to the prospects of millions of unemployed Americans. Nor did they seem concerned that amnesty would encourage even more illegal aliens to enter our country—and our job market.

Radical leftist Frank Sharry said he was encouraged about prospects for passage. Sharry heads a group called America’s Voice, a strangely-named organization given the strong opposition of most Americans, as shown in poll after poll, to amnesty.

Sharry said one thing that encouraged him was that he and his allies were able to force the CNN network to drop CNN commentator Lou Dobbs who had regularly informed his TV audience about the problems associated with illegal immigration. Evidently the illegal immigration supporters believe that they have a better chance to push their agenda if the American public doesn’t know what they are doing.

The anti-American voice of Sharry went on to estimate that amnesty has 50-50 chance of passage. He maintained that 52 Democrat Senators are solidly behind “reform,” his word for amnesty, but conceded that it might be something of a problem to win over eight Republicans, so as to reach the total of sixty senators, the number necessary to shut off debate and force a vote on amnesty.

Another speaker at the Columbia meeting, David Ayon, said that he felt that Republican support might be obtained, noting the strident efforts for amnesty by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The South Carolina senator once distinguished himself by describing amnesty opponents as “bigots” in a speech to the National Council of La Raza (The Race), a Latino supremacist organization.

Illegal alien advocates are doing more than talking. Recently they organized two political action PACs to give money to political officeholders and candidates who will do their bidding. So far the two, Immigrants’ List and ImmigrationPAC have raised a total of $100,000.

Patriotic Americans who want real reform, i.e., no amnesty and reduction of immigration to open jobs for Americans, should take note of what the illegal advocates are up to. With Lou Dobbs no longer on television, it is more important than ever to have active networks of citizens who can disseminate accurate information on immigration to their fellow Americans. AIC stands ready to play a leading role in this effort.   

Mass Immigration Contributes to Crime

            Immigration advocates have claimed recently that the perception is false that immigrants commit crime at higher rates than native-born Americans. Some even claim that illegal aliens commit less crime than citizens—which indicates that they really don’t think that violating immigration laws is a crime.

            Challenging these claims is study released last week by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). The report rebutted an argument the immigration advocates often use on crime, namely, that the overall crime level has declined since the early nineties, despite the surge in immigration since that time. The study notes, however, that this trend does not prove that immigrants are committing proportionally less crime than the native-born.

            The report concedes that it is difficult to find firm and reliable figures on the comparative crime rate of immigrants. Nevertheless, it points to particular estimates and findings which indicate that crime by immigrants is at least a significant problem and, particularly with illegal immigrants, a disproportionate one as well. Among them:

            The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails are legal and illegal immigrants. This compares with a total adult foreign-born population (including naturalized citizens) of 15.4 percent. The DHS also has stated that 11 to 15 percent of the U.S. jail population is made up of non-citizens. Of the total U.S. population, 8.6 percent are non-citizens, i.e., un-naturalized immigrants.

            On the amount of crime committed by illegal aliens (aside from violating immigration law and related offenses), the study cited statistics from the 287 (g) program which allows localities and states to participate in immigration law enforcement. The participating jurisdictions, which admittedly don’t necessarily reflect all localities and states, in general show a disproportionate number of illegal aliens held in custody for crimes.

            Another indicator is SCAAP, the program that allows jurisdictions to receive federal reimbursement for the number of illegal aliens they hold in custody. The study noted that states being reimbursed held illegal alien inmates at levels either equal to or higher than the percentage of illegals in the general population.

            Another indicator of illegal alien crime not noted in the CIS study was the finding of Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta. In a study she conducted covering the period between 1999 and 2006, Schurman-Kauflin concluded that illegal aliens committed close to 960,000 sex crimes, a rate higher than the general population.

Also not mentioned by CIS was a study published in 2005 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Of 55,322 illegal alien inmates surveyed, the study found that they had been arrested an average of eight times on multiple charges. Fifteen percent involved crimes against property and 12 percent crimes of violence. The balance of the crimes included other serious offenses such as fraud and obstruction of justice.                

Dobbs Resigns – The Bigots Cheer

            CNN commentator Lou Dobbs has abruptly resigned from his position, before the termination of his contract. For some time his commentary has been under heavy attack from Latino supremacist groups, such as the National Council of La Raza (the Race) and other advocates of illegal aliens. They called on CNN to fire Dobbs or force him not to speak against illegal immigration. Just recently, after Dobbs had received death threats, a gunman fired a shot at his house while he and his wife were present.

            According to one rumor, CNN told Dobbs to curtail his coverage of illegal immigration, and he refused—this bringing about his resignation. The threats and the shooting may also have played a role in his decision. In any case, it is a sad occasion for true Americans who embrace the values of this country. Truly, it was a victory for anti-American bigots who subvert our rule of law and our freedoms.

            The Latino groups call themselves “civil rights” organizations, but that’s as far from the truth as one can get. Those who support civil rights value the rule of law and the importance of citizenship. La Raza and its ilk do neither. Their transparent goal is to undermine our rule of law for the benefit foreign lawbreakers—ultimately to serve the power and clout of La Raza.

            It should go without saying that this crowd has no interest in assimilation and American values. True to the culture of Latin America, which they wish to impose here, they do not believe in our concepts of tolerance, open discussion, and free speech. By one means or another they seek to silence all disagreement with their agenda. Ironically, they have sometimes called Lou Dobbs a bigot, which the dictionary defines as one who adamantly refuses to consider different points of view. If they wish to see bigots, they should look in a mirror.

            Dobbs indicates that he will continue to speak out on national affairs. Some observers in the media think he may be lining up a slot at Fox News. Whatever the case, he is silent for the time being, and the Razistas are celebrating. As Americans we have a choice, do we accept this intimidation or do we stand as citizens for our heritage and our rights. Our answer will determine whether America remains America.       

Make Reality Deniers Face the Numbers

As time goes on, many supporters of mass immigration become more and more detached from reality. No matter how high our unemployment rates rises, they want the doors wide open for more foreigners to enter and compete with the 15 million or so unemployed Americans. And no matter how many Mexicans want to settle in our country (36 percent of the population according to a recent poll), they would encourage them to come by giving amnesty to the ones already living here.

But it’s not just Mexicans who would like to come. The Gallup polling organization did a survey of 135 countries between 2007 and 2009. It found that 700 million adults would like to relocate to other countries. Not surprisingly, most were people in poor Third World countries who would like to move to Western countries. Of the 700 million, 24 percent, a total of 165 million, would like to settle in the United States.

Now, let’s pose a question to our reality-defying immigrationists. Should we let them all in? And please, no sappy sentimentality about huddled masses and American Dreams. The question in point is simply this, can we admit so many people in the span of a few years and still keep our quality of life and indeed the very existence as a country. Bear in mind too that these 165 million, about half of our existing population, would just be the beginning of the influx.

Our current immigration laws place high priority on immigrants bringing in their family members. Thus we can be sure that the 165 million would certainly want to bring in their spouses and minor children. Also they can petition to bring in parents, adult children, and brothers and sisters. Furthermore, in chain fashion, these people can petition for their other relatives to come too.

Thus, if we don’t want to set limits and enforce them, upwards toward a billion people could come knocking at our door. This is the reality that sane and mature Americans must force the reality-deniers to confront. If they say we must have immigration, ask them if they are willing to accept all of the hundreds of millions who will line up to come. Perhaps to avoid looking like total fools, they will concede that some limits are necessary. When they say that, restrictionists should reply, “Congratulations, you have now joined our side as restrictionists. All we disagree on now is how much immigration, if any, that we need.

Sensible Americans must pull the immigration dreamers out of their delusional sleep. If not, their dreams will become our nightmares. 

         The goal of these unAmerican hypocrites is simply to silence all viewpoints they don’t like. Totally indifferent to the freedom of expression enshrined by our First Amendment, they wish to use all legal means to stifle free discussion. Eventually, they would like to label all speech they hate as “hate speech” and thus make it a hate crime.

          But as they are advocates of lawbreaking, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that at least some of these people are willing to resort to crime to get what they want.

          That became frighteningly evident when, after a series of threatening phone calls to Dobbs, a gunman fired into his house. “The shot,” said Dobbs, “was fired with my wife not 15 feet away.” Dobbs and his driver were also present.

          The commentator eloquently expressed the meaning of this event, “If anyone thinks we’re not engaged in a battle for the soul of this country right now, you’re sorely mistaken. . . . It’s time we really awaken to what is happening . . . it is ugly, it has to stop, and we have to find the courage to elect congressmen and senators, and yes, presidents who will speak truth. Not pander and not play politically correct games.”

          Then he asked, “Why are we not enforcing laws, why do we not demand respect for our sovereignty, why do we not demand honest, open, straightforward debate.”

           Indeed why don’t we? The alternative is to let the values of Third World invaders and their traitorous American allies supplant our rule of law and the liberties it upholds. The shot fired at the Dobb’s home was a warning and a foretaste of the kind of America that broken borders and mass immigration will bring us.

            Take a stand against the Dobbs haters. Call CNN at (404) 827-1700 and tell them that you support Lou Dobbs and his stand on illegal immigration.        

Lawlessness Isn’t Righteousness

            One of the many disreputable antics of the amnesty supporters is trying to enlist God as an advocate of their cause. For some religionists in particular, rewarding lawlessness is a form of righteousness.

            Recently the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an umbrella organization for 40 conservative Protestant denominations endorsed amnesty for illegal aliens, i.e. legal status for illegals and the pathway for citizenship for them. A spokesman for the organization tried to give the impression that this was the consensus of opinion within the organization and the denominations it represents.

            Said Rev. Leith Anderson, the president of (NAE) “We actually had a vote today on this resolution leaders in the [NAE] and there was no dissent. . . . On the board, there were 75 who represent the heads of denominations.”

            In recent years some younger leaders of evangelical groups have tired of criticism from the fashionable media, and have sought to ingratiate themselves with the likes of The New York Times and MSNBC by proclaiming more liberal viewpoints. Support for amnesty seems to be one of them.

            Nevertheless, it is clear that the majority of people in pews have no such aspirations to be trendy. After the NAE made its proclamation, many called their office to protest. At this point the organization tried evasion. When AIC contacted the NAE, the woman who answered said that the organization was not endorsing “amnesty.” But when questioned further she conceded that the NAE was for legalizing illegals and giving them a path to citizenship. She claimed this wouldn’t be amnesty because the illegals would have to meet certain requirements to become legal.

            This is a standard dodge by amnesty advocates, but it holds no water. To illustrate, everyone called the first amnesty in 1986 an amnesty, but it had standards for applicants to meet. And, we should point out, these were standards they often slipped around and evaded. Indeed what else should one expect lawbreakers to do?

            Now it has come to light that support for amnesty is not by far the unanimous conclusion of NAE’s members. As The American Spectator noted (10/21/09), “The NAE website shows only 11 of [its] over 40 member denominations endorsing the immigration stance. And only eleven individual signers, though reportedly 75 NAE members voted for it." In point of fact, several denominations have explicitly stated that they oppose amnesty.

            Thus when certain religious leaders speak for amnesty in particular and mass immigration in general, it’s good to consider that they do not necessarily represent their congregations, much less the will of God. As they promote lawlessness, confusion and strife, they speak either from a misguided humanitarianism—or from other motives far less than righteous.                  

Amnesty Encourages Illegal Immigration

            One of many good arguments against amnesty for illegal aliens is that rewarding a certain behavior only encourages more of it. In the case of amnesty, this is history, not speculation. After each of the several amnesties since 1986, illegal immigration surged.

            If anyone would like any more proof, we would like to cite a recent Zogby International poll in Mexico, the country of origin of about 60 percent of our illegal alien population. The poll found that 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) would like to move to the United States, if they had the “means and opportunity.”

            Next the poll asked Mexicans if the passage of amnesty in the U.S. would encourage their relatives and friends to enter the U.S. illegally. Fifty-six percent said that it would encourage them, 19.6 percent said it would make no difference, and 7.6 percent were unsure. Only 16.6 percent said it would it would make them less likely to come. Thus we see that Mexicans by a wide margin would view amnesty as a green light to move in and break our laws.

            Another issue to consider, given that current amnesty proposals would give a pathway to citizenship to illegal aliens, is just what kind of citizens amnestied Mexicans would make, in terms of their willingness to assimilate. One question on the survey provides an indication. It asked if American citizens of Mexican origin owe primary loyalty to Mexico or to the United States. Sixty-nine percent said to Mexico, and only 20 percent to the United States. The rest were undecided.

            So why do amnesty supporters want to pass a law that will promote illegal immigration and weaken assimilation? The answer that they know perfectly well what amnesty will do—and that’s why they want it. For cheap labor, cheap votes, and ethnic clout they want endless streams of illegal immigration flowing over our borders.

            Patriotic Americans must not be fooled by the lie that amnesty is a “reform.” If we wish to stop illegal immigration, we must penalize it with effective immigration law enforcement and cease to reward it. This we owe to our country—and to the people of Mexico as well. As long as illegal immigration flows, the corrupt wealthy elites of that country have no incentive whatsoever to provide a better life for their countrymen. We should have enough compassion toward our southern neighbors to give their rulers that incentive.

Make E-Verify Permanent

 Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced legislation, to make the E-Verify program permanent. It’s high time for this to happen. E-Verify is a key component to stopping illegal immigration by preventing illegal aliens from getting jobs. It is an Internet-based system that allows employers to access federal data bases to check the legal status of people they hire.

E-Verify is mandatory for businesses in a few states, and it is now being required for contractors doing business with the federal government. Otherwise, use of the program is voluntary. That use has grown significantly in recent years.

One problem facing the system is that authorization for E-Verify has to be renewed periodically, as it was a couple of weeks ago. It should be permanent so that businesses will be encouraged to join. They are of course less inclined to sign up if they think that the program will expire once they come to depend on it.

A big reason why E-Verify isn’t permanent is that illegal alien advocates in Congress don’t want more businesses to use it. Also, it’s likely that the temporary status of the program, allows it to be used as a bargaining chip when they apply political pressure for their goals. To illustrate, they might say, “We’ll renew E-Verify again, but only if you allow us to pass an amnesty for illegal alien farm workers.”

Rep. Broun’s legislation will put a welcome end to the prospect of such extortion and signal businesses that the program will be around as long as they want it. Another worthwhile feature of his bill is that it will allow employers to prescreen prospective employees with the system before training and paying that person. The bill also would allow employers to screen all their employees, instead of just for new hires as the present system authorizes.

In the congressman’s words, “Following the latest extension [of E-Verify] , there is no better time to strengthen the electronic employment verification system and finally make it permanent. Illegal immigration continues to threaten our homeland security and economic security. Since the last several sessions of Congress failed to come to a consensus [on immigration], we should take advantage of incremental reforms with proven success.”             

Go Grassley—Restrict H-1Bs

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) deserves applause for his proposed legislation to tighten-up the H-1B visa program, one notorious for allowing U.S. companies, often in high tech-fields, to import foreign workers while excluding Americans. The H-1B law requires the companies to ensure that no Americans are available for job openings before bringing in foreigners, but many companies have creative ways of avoiding this requirement. Their aim is to obtain a workforce less expensive (in wages) than Americans and more subservient.  

Last year Grassley released a study by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) which found that one out of five H-1B visa applications showed evidence of fraud or other violations.

In a letter to USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas, Grassley said, “Employers need to be held accountable so that foreign workers are not flooding the market, depressing wages, and taking jobs from qualified Americans. Asking the right questions and requesting the necessary documents will go a long way in getting out the fraud in the H-1B program.”  

With almost 15 million Americans out of work and the official rate of unemployment near ten percent, it is good to see someone in Washington doing something to relieve the plight of Americans in need of jobs. Recently AIC received a letter from a tech worker who said that foreign workers with H-1B visas have made it impossible for her to find work in her field, despite 17 years of experience and specialized skills.

As a consequence, she related, “I have about two-and-a-half months left of savings before I will have to call my mortgage company and tell them I can’t pay. Call my car company and tell them I can’t pay. . . . I have already canceled everything I could cancel to save on expenses.”

H-1Bs are part of our economic elites’ plan of globalization. Another part is so-called “free trade.” When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was debated during the early nineties, its supporters conceded that it would cause Americans to lose middle-class manufacturing jobs, but they reassured us not to worry because job losers could always retrain as in the emerging fields of high tech. Now the globalists aim to keep those jobs from us by handing them to foreigners.

Sen. Grassley deserves support for putting the needs of his countrymen first. Unfortunately, there are too few in Congress who share his commitment. Too many are bought and paid for by cheap labor interests. These politicians will not worry about our jobs until we, at the ballot box, make them worry about theirs.               

Illegal Alien Pot Growers Ruin Parks

 
            America’s national parks and other protected sites of nature are an outstanding reflection of our commitment to protect the environment and natural resources, both for the benefit of Americans living today and for future generations. This is a commitment we take very seriously.

Unfortunately, a growing number of our protected lands are under assault by foreigners, specifically Mexican drug cartels and illegal aliens in their hire. They are using our protected areas to plant marijuana crops, and they are totally unconcerned about the damage they’re causing. CNN.com reports (9/3/09) that “[F]igures from the U.S. Forest Service indicate the sheer volume of marijuana plants on U.S. public land has increased every year since 2005. . . . Most pot farms are cultivated by low-level cartel workers, many who are working to pay off smugglers who helped them cross the border, officials said.”

This pot cultivation is environmentally destructive in many ways. As the CNN report continued, “Growers often dam up natural waterways with PVC pipe to redirect water to their plants, or poison the land and animals with insecticides. Many poach for food. Tons of trash is found scattered at the sites.” Many charge the cultivators with starting forest fires. In August, reported The Los Angeles Times (8/16/09), illegal alien pot growers set a fire that burned 75,000 acres in Santa Barbara County.

The pot farms also pose a threat to hikers and others who stumble across them. Quite often the cultivators are well-armed and, according to the CNN report, fortify their positions with foxholes and sniper nests.

 Recently, authorities had to close a portion of Sequoia National Park in California as park rangers raided a marijuana farm. A park spokeswoman commented, “Last week for six days, instead of having families and children [visiting] . . . we were flying helicopters to do a law enforcement operation. That’s not fair. You should be able to come to the park to enjoy it.” CNN.com (9/3/09)

Indeed we should. But until we get serious about enforcing our immigration laws, this problem will only grow worse—as will all the other problems brought about by illegal immigration. It would be nice if environmental organizations like the Sierra Club would take up this issue, but it appears that most would prefer to let the wilderness go to pot (literally) rather than offend politically correct sensibilities.

Thus the solution must come from the rank and file of ordinary Americans who want to preserve their way of life and quality of life. If we surrender our parks, one of our great national achievements, our surrenders may never end.   

A Priest Looks at Immigration

             The religion wing of the open borders lobby would have us think that their viewpoint is the viewpoint of God. Recently a group of these religionists gathered in Washington to proclaim compassion toward immigrants and hostility toward anyone disagreeing with their views on immigration.

            One who takes a strong view to the contrary is Fr. Domininque Peridans, a Catholic priest who serves a parish in Maryland. Peridans agrees that faith calls people to love, “but [they] need to be given the tools for the discernment of how to love intelligently and respectfully.” He goes on to note that “[God’s] grace does not destroy nature. . . . [and] faith does not destroy reason.”

            From these perspectives he observes that nations merit moral recognition because their existence is natural and reasonable. Says Peridans, “The human family is the basic cell of society. . . . Quite simply, what is true of the family is analogously true of the nation. In both communities, we speak of the common good. . . . When the common good disappears, so does the community. A community, therefore, has a right, and an obligation, to protect its patrimony and to invite others to join the community respectful of this patrimony.”

            A community determining its common good must of necessity place its own interests first, while not necessarily ignoring the interests of others. Peridans quotes Thomas Aquinas: “In matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow citizens.” He takes strong issue with those who point to the needs and immigrants of immigrants while ignoring and defaming the concerns of Americans as to what immigration—particularly illegal immigration—is doing to the fabric of their country.

            He affirms that while “[g]enerosity is a must. Open borders . . . are not a must—if there is to be such a thing as a national community. . . . [O]pen borders are the negation of the common good, and blurring the lines of legality of status in a country is a lack of healthy and respectful realism regarding the common good.”

            To Peridans’ analysis one might add that it might be wise to question the motives of the mass immigration/open border crowd, looking beyond its rhetoric of love, tolerance and compassion. Hidden behind that rhetoric, more often than not, is greed, power-seeking, and simple hatred of traditional America. Such motives, most certainly, aren’t of God.

            To read the full text of Fr. Peridans’s commentary, go to the August 2009 Backgrounder at www.cis.org.             

Joe Wilson—Rude But Right

            One commentator summed it up well, “Wilson is rude, but right.” The Wilson in question is Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) who stirred national controversy when he spoke out during President Obama’s speech on health care. When Obama claimed that proposed health care legislation would not cover illegal aliens, Wilson replied, “You lie.”

            No, that wasn’t a good idea. But it’s not hard to understand the congressman’s exasperation. No matter how many times refuted, the falsehood that the proposed health bill, H.R. 3200, will exclude illegals keeps rearing its head again and again—especially in the mainstream media. A supposedly reputable website called “fact check” says that benefits for illegals is a “myth.” That claim itself is mythology.

            Here are the facts: The bill has a provision excluding illegal aliens, but House Democrats on two committees have voted down amendments to give power of enforcement to that provision. Illegals will get benefits because, by design, there is nothing in the bill to stop them. This prompted the Congressional Research Service, the “research arm” of Congress to state, “H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens—whether legally or illegally present. . . .”

            It is reasonable to assume that President Obama would know these things. Certainly he and leading members of his party in Congress must know also that publicly-funded health care for illegal aliens is highly unpopular with the American people. If one has any doubts about this, reflection on a recent Rasmussen poll would lay them to rest. It found that 83 percent of voters believe that people should have to prove they are citizens before receiving public health care benefits. Only 12 percent disagreed, and five percent were unsure.

            Thus it is understandable that supporters of H.R. 3200 want to maintain the myth that benefits for illegal aliens are a myth, particularly those in Washington. They fear the wrath of voters awakened to the truth. Thus it is no surprise that they and their allies are on the warpath against Wilson for telling it. The South Carolina congressman should have expressed his outrage in a more appropriate manner—but that outrage itself was entirely appropriate and justified.     

Americans Will Do Most Jobs

With U.S. unemployment approaching ten percent, and a total of 14 million Americans out of work, the pro-immigration lobbies seem less inclined to parrot their cliche that “immigrants only take jobs that Americans don’t want.” Many Americans today are willing to take just about any job they can get.

In point of fact, as shown in a recently study by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), there are very few job categories where native-born Americans are not the majority of workers. Said, CIS researcher Steve Camarota, “It looks like pretty much every job, including the worst paying, the toughtest jobs you can think of, are done, typically overwhelmingly, by Americans—even jobs you might think are overwhelmingly done by foreign-born people.”

In the few categories where immigrants are the majority, such as “plasterers and stucco masons” and “tailors, dressmakers and sewers,” native-born American are still more than forty percent of the workforce. Of agricultural workers, often thought to be mostly immigrants, one-half are native-born Americans.  

The CIS study found that “More than 23.5 million native-born Americans work in high-immigrant occupations (occupations 20 percent or more immigrant). These occupations include 19 percent of all native workers.” Those workers, said the study, tend to be poorer and less educated than most Americans.  

Faced with strong competition from immigrants, the unemployment rate among U.S. minorities is higher than the national average of 9.7 percent. For U.S. Hispanics, it’s 13.3 percent; for black Americans, it’s 15.8 percent. In jobs where immigrants are more than 20 percent of the total workforce, the average wage level of American workers is 25 percent less than in jobs where the percentage of immigrants is less than 20 percent.

The elites of America who favor mass immigration, alas, usually don’t have to worry about such things as wage depression and declining job opportunities. This particularly has been the case with so many of our House members and senators in Washington. Perhaps they will never understand the problem of unemployment until voters make it a real possibility for them. The 2010 mid-term elections will be a good place to start. 

Kennedy Deserves No Tribute

            Passing “immigration reform” [a k a amnesty] would be a “fitting tribute” to the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), says columnist and mass immigration advocate Morton Kondracke. Certainly Kennedy was a leader in promoting mass immigration, both legal and illegal. But for that he certainly deserves no tribute.

            Kennedy was a man of low personal character and ethics, and his dishonesty was most evident in his advocacy of immigration bills. Of the infamous 1965 immigration act, which he spearheaded, Kennedy promised: “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of the country will not be upset. . . . [and the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country. . . .” Nevertheless, these consequences were exactly what the 1965 act initiated.

            When Congress first debated amnesty for illegal aliens, which culminated in the 1986 amnesty—and legal status and the path to citizenship for 3 million illegal aliens, Kennedy promised that granting legal status for illegals would only happen once, and never be repeated. It was a promise not kept. Indeed, Kennedy led the failed attempts to pass amnesty in 2006 and 2007.

            Kennedy’s indifference to our country’s laws and interests have led some to question his basic loyalty to the United States. In point of fact, during the Cold War Kennedy made contact with the government of the Soviet Union and offered to assist the Soviets in making their case against the Reagan Administration on the issue of missile deployment.

            Truly today, one has reason to question the basic loyalty of illegal immigration advocates. Their indifference to the importance of our borders and the value of our citizenship suggests agendas other than allegiance to the United States. Also, as with Kennedy, we have reason to question their honesty. Some, such as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) are claiming that we should now have amnesty because the border is not significantly under control. The reality is that it is not, while at the same time the Obama Administration seems inclined to cut back on what little internal enforcement we have.

            No, we owe no tribute to the likes of Ted Kennedy. Tribute belongs to those patriotic Americans who innundated Congress with phone calls and stopped the 2006 and 2007 pushes for amnesty. May they rise to the occasion when amnesty comes up again.           

    Care for Illegals Is No Myth

            “It’s a myth” say defenders of the House health care proposal, HR 3200, that the measure would provide coverage to illegal aliens. One congressman making this claim at a Town Hall meeting was Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). He maintained that the bill specifically excludes illegals.

            The part of the measure he referred to was Section 246 which states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

            Does that statement prove that Frank and the other defenders of the bill are correct? Not at all. Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) rightly concluded that Section 246 is just so much window dressing if the bill “does not require the tools necessary to make sure illegal immigrants do not access taxpayer-funded health care benefits.” With this thought in mind Rep. Heller proposed an amendment to HR 3200 during the House Ways and Means mark-up to provide those tools.

            Specifically he proposed use of the Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to screen out illegal aliens applying for benefits. The amendment was defeated by 26 Democrats on the committee. Given that IEVS and SAVE are effective screening tools, one must conclude that the nay-sayers didn’t want effective screening.

            So is Section 246, which calls for exclusion of illegals, worth any more than the paper it’s written on? It’s a question someone should ask Barney Frank at one of his upcoming Town Hall meetings.

            The tactic of passing legislation against illegal aliens, without effective means of enforcement, is old and favorite ploy of pro-alien politicians—such as Barney Frank. Since passage of the first amnesty in 1986, bill after bill promised border control and internal enforcement. But much more often than not, these measures had no funding and no real teeth.

            When the pro-alien politicians begin their drive for amnesty, they will make many promises to soothe the American public. Look at what they do, not what they say.                     It is truly a myth to believe that we can trust them.

A New Case Against (Mass) Immigration

            Those who defend mass immigration, legal and illegal, claim that immigration worked out in the past, even though people worried about it. Therefore, they soothingly try to persuade us, America has nothing to worry about now.

            The fact of the matter is that the circumstances of immigration are far different than in the past. A very good summary of the reason is Mark Krikorian’s recently published book, The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal. Krikorian is executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a frequent guest on national TV shows.

            His basic point is that the immigration policies we have now are inappropriate, given the kind of “modern” society most Americans want to have. It consists of a country where social harmony prevails, where most people have are middle-class, and where infrastructure and the environment are not under stress.

            If for no other reason, current immigration undermines these goals with its massive numbers, a net total of 1.3 million a year. To put the total influx into perspective, Krikorian notes that “Fully one-third of all the people ever to move to the United States, starting from the first Siberian to cross the Bering land bridge in search of game, have arrived since 1965.” These overwhelming numbers under the best of circumstances would pose considerable problems for our social vision.

            Assimilation is just one example. In the past, our society generally agreed on what it meant to be an American and insisted that newcomers conform to this standard. That is hardly the case today with “post American” elites in government, the media and elsewhere sabotaging assimilation with their cult of multiculturalism. Economically, as a post industrial country, we no longer have the factory jobs that provided upward mobility to earlier generations of immigrants. Budgets are constrained for infrastructure, and we no longer have the wide-open spaces that once invited more population.

            In response claim that diversity is “enriching” us, Krikorian points out that immigration is decidedly un-diverse, with most of it coming from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries. This again retards assimilation, by making it easier for these newcomers to cluster together in their large numbers and not change. It also fosters the cause of Latino radicals and their ethnic/racial agendas.

            Krikorian’s book is a valuable rebuke to the ignorance, dishonesty, and maudlin sentimentalism that prevent reasonable discussion of immigration.                     

When Amnesty Comes Up, Speak Out!

            The elites of America are very concerned that ordinary Americans are making their views known to congressmen at public Town Hall meetings. They are outraged that ordinary people are so brash and uppity as to question the health care plans now before Congress. Admittedly some at the meetings may have been too shrill, but in the main, people have simply expressed their heart-felt concerns about the plan. One of them is that the House health proposal, for all practical purposes, will allow illegal aliens to participate in the program.

            This public uproar, seemingly, is what representative government is all about. But one not too comfortable with that concept is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She claims that this kind of populist upsurge does not represent grass roots America—as if this wealthy insular politico would have even a clue about average Americans. According to Pelosi, the critics at the meetings are “Un-American.” What irony! This is the same person who once praised the “patriotism” of illegal aliens. Pelosi probably wouldn’t know a real American if she stepped on one. (And step on them she does.)

            In any event, President Obama made it known during his recent trip to Mexico that once the health bill is finished, he’s going to move full speed ahead on his “comprehensive,” immigration legislation, i.e., amnesty for illegal aliens. In what Congress Daily PM called “his strongest commitment yet” to the plan, Obama stated that he hoped that it could be passed next year.

            Said the president, “This is going to be difficult. It is going to require bipartisan cooperation. There are going to be demagogues out there who [will] try to suggest that any form of legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable.”

            There you have it. Those of us who believe in the rule of law and oppose reward for those who break our laws are “demagogues.” Well, we demagogues should prepare to borrow a page from the health care critics, and prepare to meet our congressmen at the Town Halls—as well as communicate with them by letter, phone and e-mail.

            Let there be no threats or insults, or any other violation of basic courtesy, but let the congressmen know in no uncertain terms that amnesty is unacceptable. Popular outrage toward misgovernment is as American as apple pie.    

Lou Dobbs Deserves Our Support

Lou Dobbs, the CNN commentator, is a man that open border fanatics love to hate. Ironically, they call him a “hater” for loving his country enough to expose the problems caused by illegal immigration—a situation that most other “mainstream” commentators prefer to ignore.

      A while back, Dobbs drew the wrath of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), an alleged “civil rights” group which resists every effective effort to stem illegal immigration—presumably to build the power and clout of “La Raza” at the expense of other Americans.

            A spokeswoman for this organization even suggested that CNN should fire Dobbs for his commentary. Illegal alien advocates show themselves to be un-American when they disregard the significance of our borders and our laws. La Raza further shows its lack of love for our country by stifling the free exchange of ideas, a principle upheld by all true Americans.

            Now joining La Raza in the fray against Dobbs is the radical-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), another strident proponent of illegal aliens. Hate hype is their stock in trade too, and according to them the major organizations opposed to illegal immigration are “hate groups” or groups related to “haters.” The supreme irony here is a so-called “law center” working to undermine the rule of law as it pertains to immigration.

            Dobbs has challenged the SPLC on its pro-illegal alien bias, and it bears a bitter grudge against him for doing so. Now it too, is calling on CNN to fire Dobbs. The pretext is that the commentator is a “racist” for discussing the issue of President Obama being a “natural born” citizen. This is irresponsible, according to the “law center.”

            To set the record straight, Dobbs believes that Obama is a natural born citizen. His point is that a good way for Obama to dispel the rumors that he isn’t is to reveal his birth certificate and other personal documents. To call this “racism” is itself  irresponsible.

            If you, the reader, are a fan of Lou Dobbs, take a stand for freedom of speech by supporting him. Specifically, e-mail the officers of CNN listed below, tell them that you want Dobbs to stay on the air. Don’t let the un-Americans win.

• Jim.Walton@turner.com (president of CNN Worldwide)
• Susan.Grant@turner.com (executive vice president of CNN News Services)
• Jon.Klein@turner.com (president of CNN/US)
• Rena.Golden@turner.com (senior vice president and executive producer of CNN.com)
• David.Payne@turner.com (senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com)
• Mitch.Gelman@turner.com (senior vice president and senior executive producer of CNN.com)

Birthright Citizenship Weakens Immigration Control

            A vexing problem for immigration control is the so-called birthright citizenship policy, which grants automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who are born on U.S. soil. The policy supposedly derives from the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution which states that people born in the United States, “under U.S. jurisdiction,” are citizens. Significantly, the authors of the amendment did not define everyone in the country as being under our jurisdiction. Specifically excluded were Indian tribes, which were regarded at time as separate nations.

            Illegal aliens, as foreign nationals, are not under U.S. jurisdiction anymore than those tribes were. Therefore it is not proper to make the children of illegals citizens on the basis of the 14^th Amendment. Birthright citizenship indeed is simply a custom not based on law. As Washington correspondent David Whitney stated in the Sacramento Bee, “Although Congress has never passed a law saying so, no president has ever ordered it, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, each of these babies [born to illegal aliens] automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when it takes its first breath.”

            Many illegal aliens understand this policy quite well. They come to the U.S. and have their citizen children. Those children are entitled to all welfare benefits that any other citizen may receive, and at age 21 that citizen child can petition for his parents to become legal residents.

            Some U.S. congressmen have introduced legislation to end birthright citizenship, but their efforts so far have not come close to success. A state level approach now under way in California is the California Taxpayer Protection Act, an initiative supporters are trying to place on the ballot by gathering petition signatures. The measure would allow only citizens and permanent legal residents to receive public benefits, including non-emergency and prenatal care.

            The immediate goal would be to save money for the state of California, now near bankruptcy, in no small part because of costs related to illegal immigration. But just as important, say supporters, is bringing the issue of birthright citizenship to the courts, so the issue can be resolved. If the children of illegals cannot get public benefits, legal action is a certainty.

            Those wanting more information about the initiative can go to the website www.taxpayerrevolution.com or write Taxpayer Revolution, Box 9985, San Diego, CA 92159.          

Our Elites Are Clueless on Amnesty

            America’s elites are beating the drums for amnesty. And the tempo of the beat is increasing. President Obama proclaimed his commitment to “comprehensive” reform, i.e. amnesty. Then the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) recently issued a report from a task force co-chaired by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush which called for legalization of illegals. The CFR accurately boasts that its members are leaders in the fields of government, business, media, and other key sectors. At about the same time, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) promised to have an amnesty bill ready by Labor Day.

            His mention of Labor Day, a holiday to celebrate American workers, reflects the height of irony and the height of his cluelessness. With fourteen million Americans out of work, Schumer and his fellow elitists seem to have nothing better to do than enabling illegal aliens to keep the jobs they have taken, while sending out the message that lawbreaking pays—an invitation for more lawbreakers to come and take U.S. jobs.

            A recent Rasmussen poll shows just how clueless our elites are. It found that only 32 percent of our political class members believe that it is important to gain control over the border and reduce illegal immigration. In contrast, 66 percent of American voters said that it was important. The poll also found that three-fourths of voters don’t believe the government has done enough to secure the border.

            The last point is most significant because Schumer claims that the border now is significantly under control—which in his mind justifies giving amnesty to the illegal aliens already here.         

            Among the other findings of the poll: 77 percent of voters oppose driver’s licenses for illegal aliens; 68 percent say that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished, and by a margin of 48 percent to 36 percent voters favor punishment of landlords who rent to illegals.

            It is pretty apparent from the poll that most Americans are not inclined to reward illegal aliens with jobs. And how could it be otherwise with so many Americans without jobs themselves? Unfortunately, to borrow a phrase from former President Bill Clinton, our political class is not feeling our pain.

            That, fellow Americans, is what we need to inform them about—by telephone, letter, fax and e-mail. And if they still don’t get the message, let’s go to the ballot box and give them a firsthand taste of unemployment.

Schumer Makes Misleading Pitch for Amnesty

            Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) says that now is the time to pass amnesty for illegal aliens because the Mexican border is being secured. Schumer said that amnesty failed in the past because “the American people didn’t have faith that there wouldn’t be a future wave of immigrants if we passed that bill.”

            But is the border secure? Far from it. Apprehensions of illegal aliens have declined, specifically from 876,704 arrests in 2007 to 723,825 in 2008. Even with that decline, a lot of illegals are still crossing the border. The Border Patrol estimates that every illegal caught, three make it in successfully. Furthermore, most of the decline is due to bad economic conditions in the U.S. rather than tightened border security. Presumably the numbers will go up again when the economy improves.

            If Sen. Schumer really believes that the border is secure or significantly secure, he should consider the recent report put out by the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), a division of the Justice Department. The report summarized conditions along the border, with respect to drug and human trafficking, in the following states:

            California. There the NDIC found that [border areas] “are easily breached by traffickers on foot, in private vehicles, or in all-terrain vehicles.”

            Arizona. “[T]rafficking activities [in Arizona] are facilitated by several factors . . . including . . . a remote, largely underprotected border area between Arizona’s points of entry.”

            New Mexico. The border in that state has “innumerable footpaths, roads and trails.” [This situation] and minimal law enforcement coverage make the area an ideal smuggling corridor for drugs and other illicit goods and services—primarily alien smuggling into the United States. . . .”

            Texas. There said the report, between ports of entry, the border is “easily breached” and protected by few “physical barriers.”

            Thus it seems that Schumer’s claim about border security is far off the mark. Also, he neglects to note that at least 40 percent of illegal immigration has nothing to do with the border. That percentage of illegals consists of those who entered with legal temporary visas and then remained after overstaying them.

            Even if illegal immigration were being brought under control, it does not follow that we should reward the illegals already here with legal status and eventual citizenship. The fact of the matter is that Schumer simply wants an amnesty, and he’s not too particular about the excuses he uses. He may get his way if he can mislead enough Americans.   

       Democrats, and Republicans, Sell Out America

            Critics of mass immigration often attack the Democrat Party for wanting to invite the world to come to America. And certainly much of that blame is justified. Many Democrats view immigrants, particularly unassimilated immigrants, as a new constituency of cheap votes for their party. But let’s not forget those Republicans who do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce and various economic interests to keep the stream of cheap labor flowing.

            A case in point was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who voiced his views at President Obama’s recent strategy session to determine how to pass legislation granting amnesty and the pathway to citizenship to illegal aliens. McCain, who helped lead the failed charge for amnesty in 2007, declared that he would not support an amnesty bill that did not include a new program to bring in temporary foreign workers.

            The gall of this man is beyond belief. Currently, unemployment among Americans is 9.5 percent. If you add to that the number of people who have given up looking for work and those who can only find part-time jobs, you get an “underemployment rate” of 16.5 percent. In 2008, America lost 3.1 million jobs. So far this year, now only half over, we lost 3.4 million jobs.

            At present, our immigration and temporary visa system admits 138,000 foreigners a month into the U.S. job market. Several hundred thousand illegal immigrants are still coming in a year, and about 8.3 million illegals now hold American jobs. The legal flow of foreign workers is bad enough and amnesty will make things worse by allowing illegals to keep the jobs they have, while encouraging more foreigners to come here illegally in hope that they too can strike the amnesty jackpot. But on top of all these indignities, McCain and his cheap labor cronies want to add a guest worker program!

            One obstacle is organized labor. Long ago union bosses turned against the interests of American workers by ending opposition to illegal immigration. They figured that amnestied illegals could join unions and pay dues. The impact of illegals on workers’ wages didn’t seem to bother these leaders. Nevertheless, it does seem to concern them about guest workers. Presumably, people who are temporary won’t be able to join unions.

            McCain told President Obama that he must pressure unions to accept guest workers if he wants an amnesty. Let’s hope the union bosses maintain what integrity they have left and say no. Amnesty and guest worker programs, especially in today’s economic climate, are a sellout of America. And please note, the sellout is bipartisan.    

Yes, We Can Send Them Home                                  

            With unemployment pushing close to 10 percent, it’s not easy these days to be an advocate of illegal immigration. For the time being, at least, the Obama Administration admits that it doesn’t have the votes to pass an amnesty. Cool heads within the administration realize that legalizing illegals, thus inviting more to come and take jobs, is a good way to invite a political backlash.

            But never underestimate the cunning and determination of those who strive to undermine our rule of law and nationhood. One of the lines they’re using now is that, like it or not, there is no way we can deport the 12 million or so illegal aliens who now live in our country. Therefore we must legalize them and make them citizens.

            Interestingly, this is the same line they were using back in 1986 when they passed the first amnesty. At that time they said it was impossible to deport the three million illegal aliens then living in the country. No matter what the numbers are, it’s clear that they simply don’t want enforcement of our immigration laws.

            And it’s especially clear now as the Obama Administration steps back from even the very modest upgrades of enforcement grudgingly carried out by the Bush Administration during the latter part of its second term. Obama is not going to complete the border fence, continue worksite raids to arrest illegal aliens, and require federal contractors any time soon to use the E-Verify system, which allows employers to check the legal status of employees.

            Interestingly, these and other steps seemed to have some impact on illegal immigration. Arrests at the border have declined, and during the past year perhaps as many as one million illegal aliens have gone home. No doubt the greatest reason for these changes has been declining job opportunities due to the recession. But many observers believe that the uptick in enforcement played a role too.

            Illegal alien advocates dishonestly suggest that the only way to deport illegal aliens is to apprehend and repatriate each and every one of them. To do so, they claim, would require intrusive police state measures.

            Present and past experience clearly indicate otherwise. When illegal aliens see that we are serious about enforcing our laws, quite often they go home on their own volition, thus deporting themselves. To illustrate, in 1954 the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower grew concerned about the rise of illegal immigration across the Mexican border. Unencumbered by our current concerns of political correctness, the administration acted swiftly and forcefully.

            That year immigration agents rounded up and deported approximately 130,000 illegal aliens. As the consequence of this action, more than a million more saw the writing on the wall and departed on their own.

             We can deal with 12 million illegal aliens with a policy of attrition, i.e., slowly tightening enforcement to encourage this population to leave. We don’t lack the means to do so, only the will. And what saps that will is the greed, treachery and ambition of the illegal alien lobby.           

Pro-Alien Lobby Pitches Hate Hype

            Unable to argue rationally about immigration policy (because they have no rational arguments), the promoters of open borders and mass legal immigration are resorting more and more to “hate hype.” That is, they try to claim that any views differing from their own are “hate” and therefore don’t deserve a hearing. They also claim that  “hate speech” causes hate crimes, and thereby suggest that “hate speech” (meaning speech they hate) should be outlawed—our First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression not withstanding.

            The “hate crimes” bill, S.909, now pending in the Senate now raises this possibility. It provides that someone who “counsels” someone else to commit a hate crime also can be charged with the crime. Many hate hype artists seem to confuse counseling and criticism.

            Recently, something called the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund said that criticism of illegal immigration, which it characterized as “the dehumanizing, racist stereotypes and bigotry of hate groups,” correlates “closely” with an alleged increase in “hate crimes” against Hispanics. This claim got wide play in the media, even though its statistics were flawed.

            The figures showed a numerical increase in officially tabulated hate crimes against Hispanics since 2003. Omitted, however, was the fact that these crimes slightly declined if the year 2001 is selected as the starting point. In any case, simple numbers are meaningless. What is significant is the number of crimes per capita against a particular group. Given the sharp increase in the total Hispanic population since 1995, hate crimes per capita against Hispanics have declined significantly during the past 14 years. So much for the theory that rising criticism of immigration during that time has prompted a hate crime wave.

            One may wonder, on the other hand, if the pro-alien lobbies continuing propaganda on behalf of illegal aliens has encouraged them to commit crimes against  American citizens, crimes including murder, vandalism, drunken driving and tax evasion. The hate hype chorus has little to say when Americans are victims.

            If indeed their rhetoric promotes crime against citizens, the solution is not censorship, but more free speech to expose what they are doing. This is the American way. The pro-alien lobbies don’t understand that way because they are anti-American to the core. They don’t believe in our country’s borders and laws because they don’t believe in our country. This truth is hard to deny, which is why the pro-aliens don’t want anyone speaking it. Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

What Are Reid and Company Up To?

 

            Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) believes that the Senate can pass an amnesty for illegal aliens before the end of the year. He said that he was willing to put his party’s “reputation on the line” to accomplish this goal. Even if he can’t persuade all Senate Democrats to vote for amnesty, the senator maintains that he can find enough Republicans to pass the legislation.
            What is one to make of this? For one thing it certainly suggests that Reid has little concern for millions of unemployed Americans who are cut off from jobs now held by illegal aliens—and would face further competition from more illegal immigration encouraged by the amnesty. And his desire to pass a bill, so soon, also may reflect his political self-interest.

            By all accounts he will face a difficult re-election campaign in 2010. Thus, if he sponsors something as unpopular as amnesty, Reid may want enough time to elapse so that—he hopes—voters will forget about it before they go to the polls.

            Or there might be some duplicity and deception involved. Many Democratic leaders, probably including President Obama, don’t want a push for amnesty until unemployment goes down. It’s probably not because they care about unemployed Americans, but more probably because they care about the high political cost of pushing an amnesty with so many citizens out of work. They might get so mad that they will never forget. On the other hand the leadership is facing intense pressure from Latino supremacists (La Raza, etc.) and other open border zealots to pass an amnesty and pass it now. So what are the Democratic leaders to do?

            Maybe they will make an all-out push to pass amnesty in the Senate, with the knowledge that it may not make it in the House. In 2006 the Senate passed amnesty legislation which languished in the House and eventually died. This would help to placate the open border lobby while failure to go the full distance and enacting a bill would keep the general public from getting too riled up.

            Whatever the case, it appears that something is up in the Senate. And that is where supporters of genuine immigration reform must now focus their attention. If Reid and company try to pass a bill in the upper chamber, the American public must rise up and stop him. Passage in the Senate does not guarantee immediate passage in the House, but it will give amnesty promoters encouragement of eventual passage.

            Winning in the Senate in 2006 prompted them to try again in 2007. Failure in both chambers in 2007 threw a monkey wrench into their agenda. We should prepare to throw another one.        

California Refutes Mass Immigration Advocates                       

            If mass immigration and diversity are as wonderful as its pushers claim, how do they explain California? Four decades ago, the state offered an excellent quality of life, a pleasant environment with wide-open spaces, an economic climate congenial to the middle class, excellent schools and public services, and a unifying American culture.

            That was when the tidal waves of immigration, much of it illegal, began rolling over the state. Largely pushed by immigration, California’s population skyrocketed from 20 million in 1970 to more than 36 million today. Twenty-eight percent of that population is foreign born, the highest percentage of any state in the union.

            So what is California like today? One who sums it up well is Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA): “The once legendary California quality of life has declined precipitously.” That indeed is an understatement. Immigration boosters, with their typical dishonesty, try to pretend that immigration isn’t really the main cause, but it is hard to think of a problem the state has which is not significantly aggravated by immigration.

            Just consider the sheer overcrowding and traffic gridlock in the state—and the loss of green space and breathing room. Orange County, near Los Angeles, got its name from its once numerous orange groves. Today, strip malls and other development cover most of the land where the oranges once grew. Certainly mass immigration has something to do with this.

            And also it has something to do with a soaring tax burden on middle-class taxpayers who have to pick up the fiscal tab for the schooling, welfare and health costs of an immigrant population that is, on average, poor and unskilled. The strain on services has been intense, but in spite of the sharp tax hikes, the state is struggling to avoid bankruptcy.

            Four decades ago, California was a conservative-leaning state, though one with a balance of left and right factions and a functioning two-party system. Today, leftist politicians in the Democratic Party, relying significantly on the votes of semi-assimilated immigrants to impose an agenda of business regulation and social engineering that makes California less and less congenial to traditional middle-class Americans. Their aggravation increases all the more amid the constant conflicts and misunderstandings brought about by multicultural diversity.

            As a consequence, more Americans are leaving California than going there.  Immigration boosters spin their theories well. But the reality of mass immigration, not the theory, is California today. And if that immigration doesn’t stop, or at least slow down, most other states will follow the sad direction of what was once the Golden State.  

Supreme Court Nominee Is a Member of ‘The Race’

 A fact largely ignored by the mainstream media is that Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s appointee to the Supreme Court, is a member of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a racialist organization that seeks to undermine immigration law. Its transparent goal is to let in more Hispanics to build Hispanic clout and influence. The word “La Raza” means “The Race.” NCLR consistently opposes any effective steps to curtail illegal immigration, while promoting benefits for illegal aliens, including amnesty.

While posing as a “civil rights” organization, NCLR has funded radicals. One of its grants in 2003 went to a chapter of MEChA, a group calling for Latino homeland in the Southwest. One of its slogans is “For those inside the race, everything; for those outside the race, nothing.” NCLR also has funded “charter schools” that promote Hispanic separatism.

Marcos Aguilar, the principal at one of those schools in Los Angeles stated that “We don’t want to drink from a white water fountain. . . . And ultimately the white way, the American way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.” 

Recently, NCLR has launched a campaign to silence criticism of illegal immigration by calling it “hate speech.” As one example, a spokeswoman for the organization called on CNN to censor the commentary of the popular news reporter Lou Dobbs on illegal immigration.

Apparently in keeping with her NCLR affiliation, Sotomayor sees her ethnicity as an advantage in making judicial decisions. During a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law, she stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

During his presidential campaign, President Obama addressed the NCLR’s national convention and promised his support of their agenda. Sotomayor’s appointment appears to be one payment on that promise.

Her presence on the Supreme Court, for certain, will be no help to genuine immigration reform. Please call your senators and ask them not to confirm Sotomayor. To reach their offices, call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.  

Schumer Aims to Trick Us

            Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) says he is “cautiously optimistic” that he and his fellow amnesty supporters can pass a legalization and path to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 to 12 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Mindful of past mistakes, the amnesty backers are trying a new ploy.

            One reason amnesty failed in 2006 and 2007 was amnesty backers’ indifference as to whether the U.S. had any effective border control or internal enforcement to curtail illegal immigration—most specifically a new rush on the border that amnesty certainly would encourage. This indifference angered amnesty opponents and other patriotic Americans, and greatly strengthened their resistance.

            To get around this obstacle, Schumer and other amnesty backers are now dishonestly claiming that the border and internal enforcement are effective. As far as the border goes, it is true that crossings have declined during the past year. While enforcement has played a role in that, most observers believe that our current economic turndown, as it has restricted the U.S. job market, is the main reason for the decrease.

            Only when the economy improves will we really know how effective border control is. In any case, we can be sure that amnesty will increase the number of border crossers. It always has in the past, in keeping with the principle that if you reward a behavior, you’re bound to get more of it. As for interior enforcement, it is obvious that the Obama Administration is backing away from even the minimal enforcement effort begun during the last part of the Bush Administration.

            Devoid of any shame, Schumer says he will hold hearings during the remainder of the year to promote “immigration reform,” his phrase for amnesty. The path may not be as easy as he thinks. With so many Americans out of work, it would make sense to step up immigration law enforcement to free up jobs, now held by illegal aliens, for American citizens. And those Americans may not look with favor on Schumer’s shenanigans.

            Another obstacle too will be Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) the new top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sessions, who led the fight against the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills, will have some say-so new legislation. In response to Schumer’s “optimism” for this year, Sessions replied, “We’re not there yet.”

            To keep from “getting there,” Americans who support real immigration reform will have to keep an eye on Schumer and his ilk and not fall for their bluff, bluster and deception.

287 (g) Is a Valuable Program

            An outstanding tribute to the worth of the 287 (g) program is the vehement opposition to it by the illegal alien lobbies. The program allows state and local law enforcement agencies to assist federal immigration law enforcement, after receiving training from the U.S. Department of Justice.

            This arrangement is increasingly popular, which helps explain why it is so unpopular with the anti-enforcement crowd. The reason 287 (g) came into being was realization that federal authorities simply didn’t have the manpower to provide effective interior enforcement against illegal immigration. The 287 (g) program, by deputizing state and local officers, has the potential of providing the necessary manpower.

            The illegal alien lobbies are disturbed by this prospect because, as it is so blatantly obvious, they don’t believe in enforcement of immigration laws. One example is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which seemingly has never encountered an immigration law it could support. Typical of immigration anarchy crowd, the ACLU played the race card against 287 (g), claiming in a report that it promoted “racial profiling.”

            In reply to this charge, Dr. James Taylor of the Civitas Institute in North Carolina observed, “It is telling that the ACLU’s report does not cite any definitive evidence that 287 (g) encourages racial profiling. . . .  [The ACLU’s] message here is that some groups should get a pass. Under the rule of law, however, no one gets a pass; everyone is treated the same, regardless of race or, even, immigration status.”

            Jim Pendergraph, a retired sheriff  who used the program successfully in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, had this to say, “It seems too many people are looking for excuses not to use a program that works, [by] crying profiling and racism. It is high time people, all people, were held accountable for bad decisions and illegal conduct.”

            Anyone interested in promoting 287 (g) in your state or locality would do well to read the booklet, State and Local Assistance: A Force Multiplier in Immigration Law Enforcement. The price is $3.00 per booklet, and is available from the American Immigration Control Foundation, Box 525, Monterey, VA 24465. To order by credit card, call (540) 468-2022.        

Hate Crime Law Intended to Silence Free Speech

            It is scarcely a secret that many immigration enthusiasts don’t want to hear anyone criticize their point of view. Often they call any disagreement with that view “hate speech,” which means that it is speech they hate and want to censor. Some would even like to make such “hate speech” a hate crime. For them, our Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing free expression is a terrible burden to endure. It’s a burden they would like to be rid of.

            One possibility for doing so may be the so-called “hate crime” legislation, S. 909, now before the Senate. Its companion bill, H.R. 1913, has already passed the House. These measures would make it easier for the federal government to step in to states and localities to prosecute alleged “hate crimes” under an existing statute. It maintains that someone who “counsels” a hate crime is as liable to prosecution as the person who committed the act.

            How supporters of these bills may interpret “counsels” is certainly cause for concern for any American with an appreciation of civil liberties. A common propaganda line of open border zealots is that criticism of illegal immigration creates a “climate of hate” which causes crimes against illegal aliens. Thus would they define commentary against illegal immigration as “counsel” for crimes against illegal aliens that might take place?

            Supporters of these bills say no, and point to language in H.R. 1913 which affirms free speech, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet, keep in mind that many of their persuasion do not regard “hate speech” (as they call it) as free speech.

            Most troubling was the statement made by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), a prominent supporter of H.R. 1913 during debate on the measure. She stated, “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.” Thus she suggests that “hateful words” are cause for legal action. Most troubling too, in this context, is Jackson-Lee’s well-known hostility to immigration restriction and people who support it.

            We already have adequate laws on the books to give equal protection against crime. Consequently, we don’t need a special category of “hate crime” laws, which can be easily twisted to criminalize legitimate commentary and expression. Call your senators’ offices and tell them to oppose S. 909. To reach them, dial the Capitol Hill Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Do it soon.            

Mass Immigration Threatens Middle Class America

            Marie Cocco of the Washington Post Writers Group recently penned an article entitled, “The End of the Middle Class as We Know It.” In the article she noted various forces which are making it harder for middle class Americans to stay in the middle class and harder for lower income Americans to enter it. Conspicuous by its absence was mention of immigration.

            At its current massive levels, immigration cuts middle incomes and lower incomes alike. As an example of the former, recall the claim of “free traders” back in the early nineties that new “high tech” jobs would sustain middle class employment, even as we lost industries as a consequence to free trade. But what happened was that high tech companies, in pursuit of cheap labor, decided to import foreign workers in place of Americans. Job opportunities for Americans declined as well as high tech wages.

            One who supported this trend was immigration cheerleader Alan Greenspan, formerly the head of the Federal Reserve. When in that position he once stated that immigration was a good thing for the economy by lowering the wages of American professionals. At the same time, there was no record of Greenspan offering to lead by example by accepting a lower salary to head the Fed.

            As the author of the easy credit polices that helped to push the economy into the debacle it’s in now, one would think that the former Federal Reserve honcho would have enough shame not to show himself in public. No such luck. Just the other day he testified as a friendly witness at Sen. Arlen Spector’s kangaroo hearing to promote an amnesty (legal status with the pathway to citizenship) for the millions of illegal aliens now residing in the U.S.

            Evidently Greenspan wants to promote for lower wage American workers what he promoted for higher-income citizens. Each time in the past when we have granted amnesty, we have had more illegal immigration. Should it be any surprise that you get more of a behavior when you reward it?

            As documented by Harvard economist George Borjas, this continuing flow of illegal immigration (as well as legal immigration) has cut the wages and opportunities of our less skilled and educated citizens. What we are moving toward is a classic Third World situation, with a small elite at the top and masses of poor at the bottom.

            Immigration enthusiasts often claim that immigration is what America is all about. To the contrary, through our history, our middle class society has been our great distinction and accomplishment. If we lose it, Specter, Greenspan and the rest of their ilk will feel no loss. They’re sure to keep their wealth and privileges.   

Napolitano Needs to Go

            Some Republican congressmen have suggested that Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano should resign. It probably won’t happen, but one can certainly hope.

            As governor of Arizona Napolitano was decidedly against immigration law enforcement. When she endorsed some enforcement measures, it was only grudgingly, in response to intense public pressure. Now that she’s in charge of Homeland Security, her pro-illegal alien bias is plain for all to see.

            In point of fact, Napolitano is not even sure that illegal immigration is exactly illegal. Said the secretary, “crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.” Actually it is a crime, a misdemeanor the first time according, to 8 U.S.C. 1325, and a felony for every crossing thereafter. Document fraud, which most illegals commit, is a felony.

            In another instance of apparent indifference to immigration law, Napolitano publicly criticized the arrest of illegal aliens in Bellingham, Washington. She decided to give them work permits.   

            Amazingly, Napolitano seems to think that the Canadian border is just as much a problem as the Mexican border. She claimed that “We shouldn’t go light on one and heavy on the other.” Does she imagine that hordes of Canadians are trying to cross the northern border and that violence from Canadian drug cartels is spilling across into the U.S.? In response to this and related comments, Canada’s National Post asked, “Can someone please tell us how U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job?” A growing number of Americans are wondering the same thing.

            Adding even more concern about Napolitano’s performance in office was her endorsement of a Homeland Security document sent to law enforcement agencies. Profiling so-called “right-wing extremists” for the agencies to keep an eye on, it managed to include Americans with mainstream and legitimate concerns—including opposition to illegal immigration.

            As Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) observed, I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do. When you look at this report, on right-wing extremists, it includes . . . about two-thirds of Americans. . . . This is . . . bizarre.”

            Truly bizarre and cause for concern is that we have a high ranking government official who ignores law violations by foreigners in the U.S. while directing law enforcement against American citizens who exercise their constitutional right to express their views. Napolitano has no business being where she is. She needs to go.

Is Obama Aiming for a Fall Amnesty?

            Will the Obama administration cast caution to the wind and go for broke to push amnesty for 12 million or more illegal aliens this year? The tea leaves are not particularly clear, but they do suggest that something is coming, and perhaps soon.

            The latest indication was the recent article in The New York Times (4/9/09) by reporter Julia Preston. The article quoted Cecilia Munoz, President Obama’s deputy assistant and White House director and the White House director of intergovernmental affairs. Before joining the Obama administration, Munoz was a vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group that supports amnesty and generally opposes effective measures to stop illegal immigration.

            “He [Obama] intends to start debate [on amnesty] this year,” said Munoz. The article added that “Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.”

            Significantly, just last month, the Los Angeles Times 3/27/09 reported that a number of wealthy pro-illegal alien foundations, including one founded by billionaire George Soros, were planning a grass-roots and media campaign for amnesty this fall costing $18 million.

            According to the New York Times article, the administration plans to claim that amnesty will not harm American workers because it will not add new workers to the work force. A more misleading claim is hard to imagine. With amnesty, American workers—now facing an unemployment rate moving toward ten percent—will have no hope of getting jobs now illegally occupied by foreigners. Furthermore, with amnesty we will throw out the welcome mat for more people to come and take our jobs and public  services. It’s happened every time in the past when we’ve rewarded lawbreaking with amnesty.

            As the Obama Administration prepares to pander illegal alien lobbies when so many American citizens are hurting, it’s time for citizens to prepare to vent their outrage—just as they did against the amnesty bills of 2006 and 2007. A good place to start is to call the offices of your House member and senators by dialing the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Make the message sweet and simple: No amnesty for illegal aliens. 

Mass Immigration Puts Freedom at Risk

            With its influence on our culture and values, immigration will determine what kind of America we will have in the future. Also, it will determine if we even have a country recognizable as America at all.

            Anti-American Americans view immigration as a battering ram to destroy the traditional America they have always hated. These radical leftists, who style themselves “progressives,” embrace mass immigration as a means to replace traditional “Middle-Americans” with an electorate more to their liking. A leading strategist of the “progressives” is Robert Cramer who explicitly advocates this displacement strategy.

            In his advice to the Democratic Party, Creamer advocates a push to legalize illegal aliens and make them citizens. He concludes that, “If Democrats continue to stand firmly for immigrant rights . . . we . . . [will have] a gigantic block of progressive voters will enter the electorate over the next 15 years—a block that could be decisive in the battle for the future.”

            Between now and then “progressives” hope to silence debate on immigration to prevent exposure of their plans. This they will do with their standard tactics of name-calling and distorted reporting by their allies in the media. Also, they are not adverse to threats of outright violence to silence opponents.

            A good example was the recent near riot at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to prevent former Congressman Tom Tancredo from explaining why our country needs to enforce its immigration laws. As Tancredo tried to express his views, protestors from Hispanic groups and campus radicals, including at least one professor, shouted insults. Then they held a banner in front of Tancredo and smashed a window to his side. At that point, campus police had to escort the former congressman away.

            Afterwards these freedom haters chanted, “We shut him down; no racists in our town” and “Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night.”

            Freedom of expression, protected by our First Amendment, is what America is all about. But our “progressives,” clearly aim for a society where only their viewpoints are permitted. And if they can import enough people from countries with no tradition of freedom and tolerance, they may succeed.

            If we Americans value our freedoms, we must raise our voices, and keep raising them, so that no one will have the power to shout them down. Freedom isn’t free; its price, at minimum, is personal commitment and action to uphold our way of life.        

Stop the 'Dream Act'

            The “Dream Act” amnesty is back before Congress again. It would give legal status and the pathway to citizenship to possibly 500,000 illegal aliens who came to the U.S. before the age of 16. But it is not a benefit offered “to children,” as some of its supporters claim. Applicants can be as old as 35.

            Dream Act proponents say it isn’t fair to deny legal status to people who first entered the U.S. with their parents and did not break our laws at that time by their own choosing. But after becoming adults they are responsible for breaking our laws by choosing to remain here. Those over 21 who get legal status and citizenship through the Dream Act can petition to get legal residence for their lawbreaking parents other relatives.

            Among its provisions, Dream Act will allow those who apply for it to enjoy in-state tuition for colleges and universities. This would give them an advantage over American citizens from other states who would have to pay out-of-state tuition. Talk about unfairness.

            Critics of the legislation, H.R. 1751 in the House and S. 729 in the Senate, say that the Department of Homeland Security probably doesn’t have the resources to prevent ineligible illegal aliens from taking advantage of the Act, or the resources to monitor those who are eligible to make sure they comply with its provisions, such as not becoming a public charge.

            In any case, the Dream Act will certainly do what all amnesties will do. By rewarding illegal behavior, they will encourage more of it. This not the message we need to be sending now. With more than 11 million Americans out of work and unemployment moving toward ten percent, we don’t need to increase competition for scarce jobs—particularly at the expense of our lower-income citizens.

            Some Washington observers believe that the amnesty lobbies are advancing the Dream Act as a means of testing how far they can go. If successful with this legislation, they may feel they have a green light to move toward their ultimate objective: mass amnesty for the 12 or more illegal aliens now residing in the United States.

            Immigration reformers need to stop this train before it leaves the station by making it known to Washington that the Dream Act is unacceptable. Call the offices of your representative and senators and tell them to oppose H.R. 1751 and S. 729. To reach those offices call the Capitol Hill Switch Board at (202) 224-3121.                   

Send Troops to the Border, Now

Putting a substantial number of U.S. troops on the border is long overdue. During the past decade on scores of occasions Mexican troops and police have crossed our border without permission. These armed violations of our sovereignty are properly a military concern.

And now with the spiraling violence south of the border, with the Mexican government pitted against well-armed drug cartels, the time is more ripe than ever to deploy troops to secure the border. In February, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called for the deployment of 1,000 troops or enforcement personnel. Said Perry, "I don't care if they are military, National Guard or customs agents. We're very concerned that the federal government is not funding border security adequately. We must be ready for any contingency."

Following Perry’s statement, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer requested the deployment of several hundred National Guard troops. She stated, “Arizona communities and citizens are negatively affected by the impacts of the illegal drug trade and related border violence, and enforcement agencies in all jurisdictions are stretched as they attempt to address the enormity of the problems.”

The Obama administration is aware of the situation on the border, but it is not certain how quickly and effectively it will act. Less than encouraging was Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s statement downplaying the extent of violence spilling over into the U.S. Contrary to what she suggested, the cartels have crossed the border and committed crimes. And if they do not see a sufficient deterrent, they will take that as green light to keep on committing crimes here, and more often.

Now is the time to act. Sending a sufficient force of troops, National Guard or regulars, will effectively send a message to all factions in Mexico. It will inform them that we are no longer accepting the status quo of a border out of control, leaving us wide open to illegal immigration, drug traffic, violence and armed incursions.

Sending troops in significant numbers, rather than just relying on civilian enforcement, coveys a level of seriousness that heretofore we have not sent. Rather than sit passively and allow chaos in Mexico to overtake us, we should act proactively to keep the situation under control. The cartels are well-armed with military equipment. We need soldiers on the border to make sure the criminals don’t have an edge in firepower.

President Obama recently affirmed his commitment to the war in Afghanistan. What’s happening south our border should claim at least his equal attention.

Americans Are Un-American, Says Nancy Pelosi

            President Obama met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and assured them that he is still committed to their apparent racial agenda of rewarding illegal aliens (most of them Hispanics) with legal status and eventual citizenship.

            “The president made it clear to us that he is a man of his word,” said Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), who chairs the Caucus. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) added, “The president said more than any of us expected him to say. He was clear, eloquent and determined in letting us know that we’re all together on the route to comprehensive immigration reform [i.e. amnesty].”

            When the charge for amnesty comes, one of the people certain to lead it is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). At a recent meeting in San Francisco, generally not reported by the media, Pelosi made it known where her heart and loyalties lie. Before an audience of legal and illegal immigrants, the House speaker proclaimed, “You are a very special people. You are here . . . to take responsibility for our country’s future. That makes you very very patriotic.”

            Pelosi expressed opposition to federal immigration raids to arrest illegal aliens. Repeating the standard propaganda line of the illegal alien lobby, Pelosi claimed that the raids split families, forcing parents to go home and leave their children in the U.S. She tried to make this situation sound typical. In any case, when separations occur, it is the illegal parent who splits the family, by not taking the kids back with him or her.

            In Ms. Pelosi’s estimate, it would seem, the majority of Americans are un-American. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 67 percent of her countrymen support surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants. But in her mind, one must conclude, there is nothing “special” or “patriotic” about loyal, law-abiding American citizens. For her, some of the most special and patriotic people are foreigners who show contempt for our laws.

            When is the amnesty train coming down the tracks? It’s hard to say, but given the leaders we have in the White House and Congress it is definitely coming. As loyal Americans prepare to stop it, just as they did in 2006 and 2007, they should recall the truly insulting remarks of Speaker Pelosi.   

The Senate Votes Against E-Verify System

            It was bad enough that Congress did not require firms receiving stimulus money to use the E-Verify system, which enables employers to check the legal status of their employees by accessing federal data bases. As a consequence of that move, says recearcher Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, as many as 15 percent of stimulus jobs will go to illegal aliens.

But even worse was the recent 50 to 47 vote in the Senate to let E-Verify end in six months, rather than extend it five years as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) proposed. At a time when 11 million American are out of work, one would think that all of our senators would fully endorse E-Verify, now used voluntarily by a large and growing number of businesses which seek to comply with law against hiring illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, too many senators—and House members too—are in the thrall of lobbies such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of La Raza (The Race), which view illegal immigration as a source of monetary or political gain.

The word from AIC sources in Washington is that threatening E-Verify with termination is part of a strategy hatched by amnesty advocates in Congress, mainly Democrats. Their plan, according to these sources, is threatening to let E-Verify expire if they do no get amnesty, or at least some other major concessions for illegal aliens.

This extortion must not succeed. In the words of columnist Patrick Buchanan, “[T]his battle is not over. If Americans understand that the [Nancy] Pelosi-[Harry] Reid Democrats have no problem with illegal aliens talking jobs from Americans, that party can be made to pay a heavy price in 2010.

“As of today, there exists a Republican-Blue Dog Democrat coalition in both Houses that is serious about putting our country and countrymen first. . . . E-Verify is not dead. For the Reid-Pelsoi-Obama Left cannot survive the perception that it is aiding and abetting illegal aliens in taking jobs of unemployed Americans.”

Below is the tally of how the Senate voted on the E-Verify. A Nay vote was for extending the system five years.       

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Nay Bayh (D-IN), Nay Begich (D-AK), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Nay Burr (R-NC), Nay Burris (D-IL), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Collins (R-ME), Nay Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Nay Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea

Ensign (R-NV), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feingold (D-WI), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Graham (R-SC), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Nay Gregg (R-NH), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johanns (R-NE), Not Voting Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kaufman (D-DE), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay Martinez (R-FL), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Nay

McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Merkley (D-OR), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Risch (R-ID), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay Specter (R-PA), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Nay Udall (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea

La Raza (The Race) Slated for Taxpayers’ Money

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has pointed out an outrageous situation. To appreciate the outrage, let’s consider a hypothetical situation: Let’s imagine that the House of Representatives passed an “earmark” to provide $950,000 to the Ku Klux Klan. Of course this would cause a great uproar, and people would demand why a supremacist group should be getting public money.

Now let’s imagine that the Klan’s Grand Wizard tries to justify the expenditure in the following manner. He states, “The money we receive will not go to our main organization, but to the Klan Development Fund, which helps people with housing and community development.” Would that explanation make the public less upset? Certainly not. Critics would reply that any money going to the Klan, even if it were limited to beneficial purposes, would work to promote the overall prestige and influence of the organization.

With that thought in mind, let’s consider what really happened. The House did indeed pass a $950,000 earmark, not for the Klan, but for the National Council of La Raza (The Race). La Raza is a well-heeled Hispanic group that consistently advocates benefits for illegal aliens, including amnesty, and opposes any effective steps to curtail illegal immigration. The transparent purpose of this encouragement of lawbreaking is to increase the political clout and power of “the race” at the expense of other groups. Given its Latino supremacist character, some have referred to La Raza as the “Tan Klan.”

A spokesman for the organization defended the earmark saying that it would go to its subsidiary group, the Raza Development Fund, for housing and community development. And that doesn’t benefit the whole organization? If the government wants to assist people with housing and other matters, let the work be done through a public agency, not a private outfit pursuing highly questionable goals. As Rep. King so rightly observed, “[T]he last thing Congress should be doing is handing out cash to apologists for immigration lawbreakers. American taxpayers do not support La Raza’s agenda or its position in support of amnesty for illegal aliens.”

If La Raza receives this federal money, it certainly won’t be the first time. For years it has received a steady stream of federal grants. And it’s not as if La Raza is poor and needy. The group has many deep-pocket contributors, most notably the Ford Foundation. If these private sources wish to fund La Raza and thereby promote its agenda, they have that right. But the “Tan Klan” has no right to take money from the many taxpayers who abhor what it stands for.

Ending public funding for La Raza and similar groups has been a goal of Americans for Immigration Control for some time. We will continue to raise this issue in Washington.      

      Illegal Aliens to Get Mortgage Assistance

Illegal alien homeowners can apply for mortgage relief under President Obama’s $275 billion mortgage assistance plan. This is the word from SaveMyHomeUSA, a group working with the government to help homeowners modify home loans they are having trouble repaying.

Said Chad Buchanan, a manager of that group, in an interview with WorldNet Daily (2/24/09), “We don’t target or go after illegal immigrant customers. But if an illegal immigrant owns a home legally, we could try to help them under our program.” He added, “A lot of mortgage modifiers out there never ask about the legal immigration status of the homeowner, and we do not ask either. This is the first time I’ve had that question asked. All we are looking to do is to modify the current note, regardless what the legal status of the client is.”

According to the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), approximately one million households in the U.S. headed by illegal aliens had acquired mortgages, as of 2007. A spokesman for CIS noted that “in most cases” mortgage lenders accepted that the taxpayer ID or the Mexican Matricula Consular card that illegal aliens often use to conduct business.

In point of fact, prior to the collapse of the housing bubble, numerous lenders and realtors encouraged illegal aliens and other “subprime” candidates to take out home loans they probably couldn’t pay back. This irresponsible behavior, both on the part of lenders and borrowers, played a significant role in creating the economic downturn we suffer today.

Now the Obama Administration is going subsidize the illegal aliens who broke our laws to come here and decided to live beyond their means. As another spokesman for SaveMyHomeUSA observed, “[The government] has provided millions of dollars to help people save their homes from foreclosure.” Those people who are American citizens, thanks to the largess to illegal aliens, will have to get by with less help than they otherwise could have had.

Also assisting illegals in the president’s stimulus bill is no requirement for companies receiving stimulus funds to use the E-Verify program. It enables employers to check federal data bases to determine the legal status of their newly hired employees. Without E-Verify, estimates researcher Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, illegal liens could take as many as 300,000 of the construction jobs created by the stimulus.

Presdent Obama promised “change we need,” but with respect to illegal immigrants, he’s just offering more of the status quo: rewards for lawbreakers and second class citizenship for citizens.               

Amnesty Advocates Consider ‘Early Passage’ Plan

The failure of Congress to include the E-Verify provision in the economic stimulus bill has encouraged amnesty advocates to believe that they can advance amnesty legislation, perhaps much sooner than expected. E-Verify is a system that allows employers to check the legal status of employees. Without E-Verify, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, as many as 300,000 of the stimulus-created jobs will go to illegal aliens. An article in Politico (2/17/09), a publication dealing with Washington politics, said that pressure from “Hispanic and business groups” prevented the system from being required of businesses receiving stimulus funds.

This victory and passage of a bill giving benefits to legal immigrant children, said the article, gives the amnesty lobby hope that the Obama administration will give amnesty a higher legislative priority than it has so far. Until recently Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has indicated that amnesty must be on the back burner until the economy improves. But more recently, in interviews with the Spanish-language media, Emanuel affirmed that the administration is committed to paying its campaign debts to the immigration lobbies.

One of those is the stridently pro-amnesty America’s Voice, headed by Frank Sharry. He stated, “I think [Emanuel] has actually revised his views on this [immigration] issue. If that’s true, it’s huge.” Sharry also observed, “One less of the Bush Administration is that if you don’t move early, it becomes harder, not easier to do.”

Sen. Robert Mendez (D-NJ) is another advocate of the “early strategy.” He maintains that if Congress can pass an amnesty this year, voters opposed to it will have forgotten by the 2010 mid-term elections. Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid (NV) also suggested an early attempt and even said that passage of a bill to legalize illegals might not be difficult.

The amnesty advocates certainly aren’t speaking from a position of weakness, but their pride—indeed their arrogance—could be their undoing. Passage of the stimulus bill without E-Verify is proof positive that Congress just doesn’t get it with respect to what’s going on in the country. Eleven million Americans are out of work, but quite a number of our representatives are intent on rewarding people who are illegally taking jobs in our country. With such rewards they invite more to come.

An article in the Hill (2/17/09), another paper reporting Washington politics, noted that “Opponents of [amnesty] have . . . proven incredibly adept at mobilizing thousand of their supporters to fight any proposal that can be tagged with offering ‘amnesty’ to illegal immigrants.” That’s a reputation we must continue to uphold. To stop amnesty this year, call the offices of your representative and senators today. The number of the Capitol Hill Switchboard is (202) 224-3121.   

Immigration Promoters Hate Free Speech

            Immigration reformers should take issue with proposals to reintroduce the so-called Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. This would require TV and radio stations to “balance” all viewpoints with opposing views.

The Fairness Doctrine became law in 1949. The rationale for it was that the limited number of broadcast channels at that time were likely to be monopolized, a situation requiring government regulation. But as time went on, advances in technology, creating numerous channels, made his rationale obsolete.

The Doctrine was repealed in 1987. Its opponents stated that there was no longer any reason, if indeed there ever was, for allowing government to regulate and curtail the  freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. They added that the chief effect of the Doctrine was to stifle lively debate. Broadcasters preferred bland commentary to having to worry about “balance.”

The rise of talk radio after 1987 proved their point. For the first time populist viewpoints, such as those contending for immigration control, had a chance to reach a wide audience and challenge Establishment dogmas. In 2006 and 2007, talk radio played a major role in defeating the mass amnesties for illegal aliens proposed those years in Congress.

That role was not lost on amnesty advocates. Now they are beating the drums for restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, with talk radio clearly the target. Just recently two senators, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), called for restoration of Doctrine. In Harkin’s words, “We gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.”

Assaults against free speech are coming from other directions too. An organization called the National Hispanic Media Coalition has filed a petition with the FCC to inquire about the alleged “hate speech” of national commentators who have demanded action against illegal immigration. “Hate speech,” is a politically correct buzzword to defame any opinion that open borders advocates may happen to hate.

One who obsesses about “hate speech” is Janet Murguia, vice president of the Latino supremacist National Council of La Raza (The Race). According to Murguia, our Constitutional right to free speech must be curbed when speech becomes hateful. And she and her fellow Razistas will be more than happy to sit in judgment as to when that line is crossed.

The fact of the matter is that the mass-immigration open-border lobby knows that it can’t win an open and honest debate. Thus they want to shut down debate until they can import a new electorate, one more to their liking than the present one. Thus the issue is far more than one of immigration and border control. Beyond that, it is the future of liberty in America.

Patriots must resist the Fairness Doctrine, and similar schemes, with all their might. There is nothing fair about censorship and labeling honest commentary as hate.

Keep Stimulus Jobs for Americans

            We expressed concern in a previous blog that many infrastructure construction jobs in President Obama’s stimulus package could go to illegal aliens instead of unemployed Americans. This indeed could be the case. The version of the bill passed by the House aims to prevent hiring of illegals by requiring the firms contracted under the program to use the federal E-Verify system, which allows employers to check the legal status of employees against federal records. The Senate version, however, does not have this provision. 

            If the Senate version becomes law, says a recent study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, employment of illegal aliens will be substantial. As Rector notes, “About one out of seven (or 15 percent) of workers employed in construction in the U.S. is an illegal immigrant. Unless strong mechanisms are put in place to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants, it is reasonable to expect that a similar proportion of workers hired for construction projects under the stimulus bill would be in the country illegally.”

            There is no excuse to be hiring illegal residents when increasing numbers of Americans are out of work. The official unemployment rate has climbed to 7.6 percent, more than 11 million people unemployed. But, according to Labor Department figures, if people who have stopped looking for work and those working part-time who want full-time employment were included the unemployment rate would be 13.9 percent. Another worrisome statistic is that 2.6 million of the officially unemployed have been out of work for six months or more—the largest number of long-term unemployed since 1983.

            Our senators need to hear from citizens loud and clear: Include the E-Verify in the final version of the stimulus bill. Make your voice heard: Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard, and have the operator connect you with the office of one of your senators. Then call again to reach your other senator’s office. The toll free number is 1-800-828-0498. If that number is not in service, call (202) 224-3121.                 

Multiculturalism Threatens Freedom

            Immigration reform is not just about limiting immigration to reasonable levels. Instead it is the means to serving positive cultural and social goals. One example is the maintenance of our liberties such as freedom of speech. As mass immigration brings more “multiculturalism,” we may face a stark choice, multiculturalism or freedom.

            Events abroad clearly point in this direction. In the Netherlands, a member of that country’s parliament, Geert Wilders, produced a film maintaining that the Koran, the holy book of Muslims, promotes intolerance and condones violence. Prior to producing that film, Wilders had criticized the impact on Muslim immigration on his country. As a consequence, Muslim extremists threatened his life, and he had to have police protection.

            Wilders stand has strong support among the Dutch people. In a recent poll 60 percent said mass immigration was the country’s “worst mistake since World War II.” An equal number see Islam as a threat to their national identity. The party Wilders heads, the Freedom Party, is the fifth largest in the Dutch Parliament.

            Unfortunately, the politically-correct elites of Dutch society and the Muslim community take a dim view of the Freedom Party’s leader exercising freedom. At their instigation, a Dutch court announced that it will prosecute him for promoting “hate” against Muslims. Evidently, their malice and intolerance toward Wilders is perfectly acceptable and legal. The Dutch legislator denounced the court’s action as strictly political, while adding, “Things are not looking good for me.”

            And neither are they looking good for freedom of expression in many parts of the Western world. The reason is that immigration from countries with no tradition of personal liberties is tilting the scales against the historic liberties of the West. Growing non-Western populations demand censorship and politically correct leaders, like those in the Netherlands, are more than happy to comply.

            Thankfully here in America we have our First Amendment to protect free speech. But immigration supporters and multiculturalists are working hard to curtail this freedom. One of their goals, it appears, is labeling all speech against immigration and multiculturalism as “hate speech”—and then criminalizing it.

            More immediately, they are seeking to restore the so-called “fairness doctrine” to censor talk radio. This law would require radio stations to offer opposing views to all viewpoints expressed, which would have the practical effect of causing stations not to offer viewpoints at all. Radical Hispanic groups and other immigration supporters are still furious at the talk shows for exposing their amnesty schemes in recent years.

            The right of citizens to discuss national issues freely is the essence of American culture. Multiculturalism means the end of our culture. Freedom is a terrible thing to lose. Just ask Geert Wilders.

Who Will Do the Infrastructure Jobs?

            Building and maintaining infrastructure are one of the key parts of President Obama’s plan to deal with our current economic problems, particularly unemployment. But many Americans are concerned, given recent statements by a top Obama economic advisor, about who will reap the benefits of newly created infrastructure jobs.

            That advisor, Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Clinton, spoke to the House Steering and Policy Committee on January 7. He said, “It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. . . . I am concerned, as many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers.” He added that he had “nothing against” white male construction workers, but “other people have . . . needs as well.” He mentioned “the long-term unemployed, minorities, and women.”

            Reich comments are troubling to say the least. When we Americans contemplate the infrastructure we depend on, such as the bridges we drive over, we should hope that all without exception who build and repair that infrastructure, regardless of race or gender, are highly skilled and professional.

            Troubling too was the response of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to Reich’s statements. Apparently agreeing with the idea of favoring designated minorities, Rangel said that opposition from “the middle class” would not be a problem. “One thing you can depend on,” said Rangel, “you don’t have to be worried about what the middle-class is going to do. Things are so bad, they have to put food on their tables, get clothes for their kids, [and] get them in school.”

            Does Rep. Rangel hope to slip a program through, allegedly to benefit minorities, which may give preference to “need” over competence? One hopes that “middle-class” America will not be so distracted that they fail to exercise oversight. With middle-class people losing jobs, they may need infrastructure work just as much as anyone else. Such oversight also could help minorities who are U.S. citizens.

            Today, thanks to the hiring practices of unscrupulous contractors, a significant percentage of construction workers in the U.S. are illegal aliens. As the recession causes them to lose their jobs, will the Obama Administration allow them to take the infrastructure jobs, and cut out American citizens, minority and non-minority alike? The pro-illegal alien stance of the Obama administration does not inspire confidence in this matter.

            If Americans of all classes and races want to reap whatever benefits the Obama program provides, they cannot afford to take their eyes of the administration—even if they are hurting. And finally, as our previous blog observed, if Obama is really serious about maintaining infrastructure, he ought to cut immigration to relieve the burden of unrelenting numbers now placed on infrastructure.      

Immigration Overwhelms Infrastructure

            The Obama Administration promises a major effort to upgrade and rebuild our country’s infrastructure. At the same time, President Obama supports our current massive level of legal immigration as well as amnesty (legalization) for illegal immigrants. The latter proposal, by rewarding lawbreaking, almost certainly will encourage more of it.

            Obama’s plans for infrastructure and his support for mass immigration are completely at odds with each other. Affirming this point most effectively is a recent study by Edwin Rubenstein, the president of ESR Research. Mr. Rubenstein has served as an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and as a research director for the Hudson Institute.

            His study surveyed 15 categories of infrastructure, including airports, border security, bridges, dams and levees, electricity (power grids), hazardous waste removal, hospitals, mass transit, parks and recreation facilities, port and navigable waterways, public schools, railroads, roads and highways, solid waste and trash, and water and sewer systems. He noted that spending on infrastructure is already “one of the largest categories of government spending,” now totaling $233 billion per year (2004 dollars). Nevertheless, our infrastructure is “crumbling” because it simply can’t keep up with sharply rising population, which results in large part from immigration.

            The immigrant population on average, said Rubenstein, receives in more federal, state and local services than it pays in taxes. As a consequence, he observed, “Immigrants could deplete the amount of funds available for infrastructure by as much as $70 billon per year.”

            Citing a recent projection by the U.S. Census Bureau, Rubenstein said that our population—if current immigration levels continue—could reach 433 million by 2050, a 44 percent increase totaling 135 million people. Immigrants and their U.S. born children would account for 82 percent of this population growth.

            The impact of immigration on schools in California is one of the many telling examples that Rubenstein chronicled. In that state 47 percent of the school-age population consists of immigrants and the children of immigrants. In Los Angeles, the need to build new schools has been so great that the Army Corps of Engineers was called in to help manage it.

            “The brutal reality,” Rubenstein concluded from his study, “is that no conceivable infrastructure program can keep pace with [present] population growth. The traditional ‘supply-side’ response to America’s infrastructure shortage—build, build, build—is dead, dead, dead. Demand reduction is the only way to close the gap between the supply and demand for public infrastructure. Immigration reduction must play a role.”   

More Job Losses Ahead, Says Forecast

            The United States lost 2.6 million jobs last year, and the business research firm Conference Board projects that two million more may be lost this year. The official unemployment figure now stands at 7.2. That, however, may be a gross understatement of how bad joblessness has become. Statistician John Williams maintains that the government has changed the standards of measuring over the years to minimize the number of people out of work.

            One example was the decision of the Clinton Administration not to count people who have given up looking for work as being unemployed. Williams affirms that if the government still used the methodology it used in 1980, the official unemployment rate today would be 17.5 percent. Williams has published his findings on www.shadowstats.com.  

            With so many Americans out of work, one would think that the leaders of business and government would consider a reduction of our unprecedented levels of legal immigration which annually admits in 1.6 million permanent and temporary workers to compete with American job-seekers. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Just recently computer mogul Bill Gates spoke before Congress pleading for more foreign workers for his industry.

            Commenting on Gates’ activity, syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts observed, “According to Gates, there is a shortage of American workers despite a 17.5 percent unemployment. I personally know American computer engineers, both seasoned and recent graduates, who cannot find jobs. What Gates and American corporations want is cheap labor, in effect indentured servants, unprotected people who don’t demand an American standard of living. . . .  If Congress expands the work visas as U.S. unemployment mounts, we will have one more piece of evidence that ‘our’ representatives have no sympathy for the American people.”  

            Just as clueless was outgoing President George Bush who criticized those who opposed his support for mass immigration and his so-called “reform” plan to give amnesty (legal status) to illegal aliens. Said Bush, “We should be open-minded about big issues like immigration reform, because if we’re viewed as anti-somebody—in other words, if the party is viewed as anti-immigrant—then another fellow may say, well, if they’re against the immigrant, they may be against me.”

            Does it occur to our soon-to-be former president that his viewpoint is blatantly against American workers? Evidently not. Bush and so many others of America’s elite classes are far too removed from economic difficulties to be “open minded” about what is happening to their fellow citizens. 

With Unemployment Rising, It’s Time to Cut H-1Bs

            Economic forecasters see unemployment as a major problem for the foreseeable future. The official figure of unemployment soon probably will rise above seven percent. And critics of the present accounting system say that it undercounts actual unemployment by excluding such categories as people who have given up looking for work.

            In this situation it would be most appropriate for the government to cut the temporary and permanent immigration visas that allow foreigners to come here and take American jobs. A particular case in point is the H-1B program. It allows U.S. businesses to bring in foreigners to take high-tech jobs and other middle class employment if they claim that they cannot find Americans to do the work. Although the stay of H-1B workers  is supposed to be temporary, they often find ways to stay in the U.S. permanently. 

            The claims that American workers aren’t available are usually bogus, says computer science professor Normal Matloff who teaches at the University of California (Davis). Citing two reports commissioned by Congress, one by the Department of Homeland Security and the Government Accountability Office, Matloff says that the companies are quite creative in finding legal loopholes to avoid their legal responsibility to hire Americans. The reason, he affirms, that they can pay the foreigners less than U.S. citizens.

            Matloff also points out that universities often hire H-1B scientists using the same kind of deception. They maintain that American scientists are in short supply. Against this claim, Matloff cites the findings of investigative reporter Eric Weinstein. Specifically, the National Science Foundation viewed H-1Bs as an effective way for colleges and universities to hold down PhD salaries. This also had the effect of making a PhD in the sciences less attractive to Americans.

            One case Matloff cites is that of Douglas Prasher, one of the leading research chemists in the U.S. Despite the alleged shortage of American scientists, the only work Prasher can find is driving a shuttle bus for a Toyota dealership in Alabama.

            “The bottom line,” Matloff charges, is that the H-1B program is being used in academia for cheap labor, just like [high tech]. It’s ruining the careers and lives of people . . . even to the point of forcing a Nobel-level researcher into blue collar work to earn a living. And all this is occurring unseen behind the hype that ‘Johnnie can’t do science’ and the U.S. is on the verge of losing its technical edge.”

            When the North American Free trade agreement was being negotiated, U.S. economic elites told Americans not to worry about the loss of our industrial base because high tech and science would provide middle class jobs to replace the ones lost to free trade. But with H-1B and similar programs, these jobs also are moving away from Americans.

            So how will native-born Americans maintain a middle class society? Apparently it is not an issue that concerns Congress much. As Matloff points out, its members are more concerned with maintaining their standard of living through the contributions provided by H-1B lobbyists. The bottom line is that congressmen will not be worrying about the jobs of average citizens until those citizens—as voters—start making congressmen worry about their employment.             

Obama’s Selections Are Not All Moderate

             The media have made much of the claim that President-elect Obama’s nominations for key positions are moderate and mainstream. A number of them appear to be so. But some he has picked, who presumably will have influence on immigration policy, are anything but moderate.

            Obama’s nomination to be Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, is an arch open borders advocate. As a congresswoman between 2005 and 2008, she earned a cumulative score of F – on votes related to border control, amnesty for illegal aliens, and benefits for illegal aliens. Awarding her that grade was betterimmigration.com, which tallies and analyzes congressional votes on immigration. Her philosophy toward citizenship was perhaps expressed in a speech she gave to the Southwest Voter Registration Project in 1996. She declared, “We are all Americans whether we are legalized or not.”

            Her viewpoint at the Department of Labor will not be helpful as growing numbers of unemployed Americans, particularly those with limited education and skills, have to compete in the workforce with illegal aliens.

            Many commentators have described Obama’s nomination to head the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, as a moderate. As governor of Arizona she did sign legislation to crackdown on illegals in her state and spoke in favor of deploying National Guard troops on the border. Critics charge, however, that she took these steps in response to intense public pressure in her state, and that they did not reflect her true convictions.

            Arizona State Rep. Russell Pearce (R) observed “The governor has done everything she can to be an open borders governor.” She vetoed legislation to stop illegals from getting in-state tuition, and also vetoed a bill to make English the official language of the state. She opposed border fencing and slashed funding to the effective effort Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to halt human smuggling operations. Napolitano was an outspoken supporter of the 2007 Senate bill that would have granted amnesty to ten million or more illegal aliens.

            Obama picked the senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, Cecilia Munoz, to serve as his White House director for intergovernmental affairs. La Raza (the Race) is an unwavering advocate of amnesty and other benefits for illegal aliens. It has also tried to silence media critics of illegal immigration by calling them “haters” and putting pressure on their sponsors. La Raza, a recipient of U.S. government grants, has funded an organization called MEChA, a Latino separatist group which proclaims: “For those inside the Race everything; for those outside the Race, nothing.

            Munoz stated that resentment over a remark she perceived as anti-Latino, when she was 17-years-old, has shaped her life and career. Said Munoz, “My outrage that day became the propellant of my life. . . . I guess outrage got me pretty far. I found jobs in the immigrant rights movement. I moved to Washington to work as an advocate. I found plenty to be angry about along the way and built something of a reputation for being strident.”   

President Bush: It’s Time to Pardon Ramos and Campean

As his time in office winds down, President Bush is said to be interested in his legacy as a president. One thing he can certainly do to enhance that legacy is to pardon former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean. They are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively, in prison for firing on and inflicting a minor wound on an illegal alien drug smuggler they attempted to apprehend.

The case against them is weak. The illegal alien was given immunity from prosecution to testify against them. The U.S. government later admitted that he lied in court. Agent Ramos, whose shot wounded the illegal alien, testified that he opened fire because he believed that the smuggler was about to fire on him. The law that imposed such lengthy sentences on them was not intended to apply to law-enforcement officers who discharge weapons in the course of performing their duties.

An AIC contact who lioves on the Arizona/ Mexico border reported on our radio show, America Betrayed, that the imprisonment of Ramos and Campean have had a chilling effect on Border Patrol agents now serving on the border. As violence against them is increasing, many fear that if they do what needs to be done to carry out their duties, or even try to defend themselves, they may end up like the two convicted agents.

It’s time for Ramos and Campean to receive a pardon. They have already served close to two years in prison—most of it in solitary confinement. If indeed they did anything to deserve punishment, they have certainly received adequate punishment and more. Last month, the president pardoned 14 people and commuted the sentences of two others who were involved in drug offences, fraud and violations of endangered species laws. Before he steps down, why can’t he add Ramos and Campean to the list?

President Bush now has a very low approval rating, and one reason no doubt was his obsessive promotion of amnesty for illegal aliens. Nevertheless, he always claimed that he believed in effective border control. Well, if he does, one way he can show it is to free the two former agents. The president, during his two terms, has spoken a great deal about compassion. To demonstrate that, he should free the two men.

To encourage President Bush to do the right thing, AIC urges everyone who reads this blog article to call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 and leave a message for the president: Pardon Ramos and Campean.     

Mass Immigrationists Are Selfish

A visitor at our site recently claimed that immigration restrictionists are “selfish.” Quite to the contrary, it is open border advocates and mass immigration promoters who are the most selfish of people.

            Immigration restrictionists commonly take their position to preserve the character and quality of their societies. The self-preservation they seek is not selfishness; self-preservation indeed is the first law of nature and ethics. No people are morally obligated to see their country overwhelmed so that they become strangers in their own land. And significantly too, restrictionists usually don’t take their stand just for themselves, but for the future generations of their country.

            Some try to claim that focus on country is wrong, but this notion is clearly outside the moral consensus of the ages. Charity must begin at home, if it is to begin at all. Someone who puts the interests of other people’s children before his own children is not acting in a moral and ethical fashion; he’s simply acting like a fool. Similarly, those who tell us that they have “risen above” patriotism are not the good people they pretend to be. Lacking this fundamental loyalty, they are fools too, and usually ones with selfish agendas. Consider the following examples:

            Warm Fuzzies. These are people who enjoy a sense of moral superiority, as they emote about the supposed wonders of mass immigration, and the “diversity” and “cultural enrichment” it brings. Far be it from them to consider that the cultures of people who are fleeing the abysmal consequences of those cultures are not likely to enrich our culture. Nor do they reflect that pulling our country down to the level of the rest of the world ultimately will benefit no one. Practicality doesn’t concern them at all because it involves mental effort and responsibility. No, their selfish goal is feeling warm and fuzzy and superior—without a care as to what happens outside their delusional world.

Profiteers. These are the folks in business who want endless streams of cheap labor for profit’s sake. Oh, they talk a good line about “free enterprise,” but good old fashioned greed is seems to be their prime selfish motivator. Their enterprise, one must note, is anything but free for the taxpayer who must pay the public costs of immigration (education, welfare, etc.) while these enterprisers skim off the profit of cheap labor.

Socialistas. These are the radical leftists who want mass immigration to wreck the traditional American society they have always hated. They claim their cause is “social justice,” but their true and selfish aim is rule of society by “just us socialists.” Like the warm fuzzies they live in dream worlds where they contemplate their superior virtue. But unlike the fuzzies, they don’t leave it at that. They aim to seize power in the practical world, and they don’t care who gets hurt in the process.

Razis. These are the racial supremacists, usually Hispanic, who view mass immigration as a great way to build their ethnic and political clout of La Raza, or whatever group. And they are not too particular as to whether that immigration is legal or illegal. They claim the legacy of the civil rights movement, but ignore that movement’s commitment to the significance of citizenship and the rule of law. Despite their rhetoric, their self-seeking is not hard to miss. When they speak of justice, what they’re really saying, just like the socialistas, is “just us.”

Once again, self-preservation isn’t selfishness, but the ideas and policies that promote national destruction for private gain most definitely are. 

The Wall Street Journal Sings Praise to Greed

            Syndicated columnist Samuel Francis once observed that some capitalists really try hard to prove that they are as selfish and greedy as socialists have always claimed they were. As an example, one need look no farther than a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal (12/2/08) bashing immigration restrictionists. It claimed falsely that restriction is not politically popular, and advised Republicans to abandon it.

            Of course the reason the Journal doesn’t like immigration restriction is that it wants no restriction on the profiteering derived from cheap labor. Beside that greed, such things as loyalty to country and culture apparently mean little. For quite some time this newspaper proclaimed that “There shall be open borders.” Open borders, of course, are the same as no borders, and no borders mean no country. Indeed, one of its former editors, Bob Bartley, stated that “nation states” (such as ours) have no future. But alas, crass money-making does, at least as the Journal sees it.

            And it doesn’t matter if Americans are losing their jobs right and left, just keep the cheap labor coming in. The government recently reported the loss of 1.9 million U.S. jobs in 2008. More than 500,000 thousand were lost in November, the highest number since December 1974. Unemployment has risen to 6.7 percent, and if categories such as people who have given up looking for work were added in, the figure probably would be much closer to ten percent.

            But as unemployment rises, no prominent voices, least of all the Journal’s, are calling for even a slight reduction of the tide. And a tide it is. Last year, U.S. admitted more than 1.6 million foreigners on permanent visas and temporary work visas, an average of 140,000 per month. That’s how many came in November to compete with the 500,000 folks who lost their livelihoods. And remember, the new entrants were just the   the legal foreigners. At least 300,000 illegal aliens come in and settle each year, an average of about 25,000 a month.

            It may be that Bush Administration staffers read and heed the Journal. One of them told a reporter that the administration had no plans now to crack down on illegals holding U.S. jobs because it wishes to show them “compassion.” Would that Americans could enjoy such concern, rather than the aliens—and their employers.

            The irony is that capitalism can’t thrive in the sort of lawless, divided, low-wage society that mass immigration, legal and illegal, is creating. Consumed by greed, the Journal just doesn’t seem to notice or care.

Will Obama Try a Fast One with Amnesty?

            The conventional wisdom in Washington is that President-elect Barak Obama will not move quickly on his intention to grant amnesty (legal status) to many or most of the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States. The reasoning is that our distressed economy will demand most of his attention for at least the first year or two of his administration. And given this situation, the Obama Administration will not want to risk its capital of goodwill by approaching a topic as controversial as amnesty too soon.

            This analysis makes sense, but it’s wise to consider that what happens in politics isn’t always sensible. Many Obama supporters want amnesty, and they are not inclined to wait. Sen. Robert Mendendez (D-NJ), a strident amnesty backer, recently demanded action on legalization soon, so that the issue would not come up in the 2010 congressional campaigns. With that concern, he seems to concede that amnesty is not a winning issue among American voters. And indeed it isn’t.

Perhaps significant was the statement of Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) before Thanksgiving. While acknowledging the need to deal with the economy, Reid affirmed that plans for amnesty are underway. The senator said that President-elect Obama and his former presidential opponent Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have made an agreement to move amnesty forward. Reid also claimed that passing an amnesty, despite the defeats of the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills, would not be difficult. Said the Nevada Senator, “I don’t expect much of a fight at all.”

It’s hard to believe that Reid really believes this, given the massive opposition to amnesty in the recent past, and the current economic situation—one that might not improve for awhile. Still, he may hope to push it through quickly before the public can react. Probably his statement is a trial balloon to test the reaction. It’s a balloon that needs to be shot down quickly.

Concerned Americans should contact their representatives and senators quickly and tell them “No” on amnesty. And this means smaller amnesties just as much as a major one. One ploy Reid and company may try is to pass amnesties for limited categories of illegals such as students or workers in particular specialties. Don’t be fooled. This is just the nose of the camel entering the tent, in preparation for bringing in the whole hump.

To contact senators and House members by telephone, call the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask for the office of the senator or House member you want, leave the message: No Amnesties.             

Immigration Impacts the Economy        

The economy is the main concern of Americans, with a massive credit crisis facing the country and unemployment rising. Supporters of mass immigration hope that this preoccupation will divert attention from the crying need to enforce immigration laws and reduce the level of legal immigration, the highest sustained level in our history, to a more moderate level.

They will succeed if enough Americans fail to understand how immigration helped to bring about our economic crisis and how it is making the crisis worse than it need be.

The causes are the crisis are complex, but no one can deny that the loosening of lending standards to encourage home ownership by “minorities,” many of them legal and illegal immigrants has greatly contributed to the crisis. In simplest terms, the relaxation of standards allowed many people, minority and non minority, to purchase homes they could not afford. These “subprime” mortgages, unlikely to be repaid, were sold as securities. Their lack of true value is now making our entire financial system quite insecure.

Columnist Michelle Malkin, noted the role of recruitment of immigrants, without great concern about their legal status, by citing an article published in The Washington Post in 2005. It observed, “Hispanics, the nation’s fastest-growing major ethnic or racial group, have been courted aggressively by real-estate agents, mortage brokers and programs for first-time buyers that offer help with closing costs. Ads proclaim [in Spanish] “Sin verification de ingresos! Sin verification de documento!” – which loosely translates as, ‘Income tax forms are not required, nor are immigration papers.’”

The failure of the subprimes, however, should be seen as part of the “housing bubble” that grew in response to easy credit polices not warranted by the market place. Growing this speculative bubble required an almost frantic rate of new home construction. This, in turn, was the basis of the claim that we needed illegal aliens as construction workers. Had this illegal workforce not been available, we probably would not have had the housing bubble and the subprime lending that also kept it growing. Here is just one example how toleration of massive lawbreaking undermines our social and economic strength.

With recession now picking up force, immigration makes employment worse with an undiminished stream of newcomers to compete for American jobs and reduce wages. And with immigrants, even those who work, more likely to use public assistance than natives, America’s poor and unskilled will face more competition for public benefits.

The economy properly concerns Americans, but we will miss true understanding if we ignore the impact of immigration on our economic problems, past and present.       

Immigration Is Still a Big and Relevant Issue

            The so-called mainstream media are claiming that immigration is no longer of great concern or relevance to Americans. They cite the lack of debate on the topic when McCain and Obama were contending for the presidency. And they say that Americans are now far more concerned about the economy.

            The dishonesty of this claim is astounding. It offers half-truths to sustain a complete falsehood. Yes, McCain and Obama didn’t debate immigration. But why should they have when they were in agreement on giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and on most of the rest of the mass immigration status quo? The fact that they conspired, with the help of the media, to sweep the issue under the rug, doesn’t mean that Americans didn’t care about it.

            And, yes, it is true that Americans would list their concern about our currently bad economy above immigration. But what honest person could ignore the significant tie-in between the two?

Americans are rightly worried about the rising rate of unemployment. The joblessness rate is now at 6.5 percent, the highest level in 14 years. If that figure included people who have given up looking for work and other categories, it would be a good bit higher. Also, last week, the Department of Labor reported that new claims for unemployment insurance were the highest in 16 years.

With so many Americans looking for work, just why are the floodgates of immigration still wide open? To believe that immigration, legal and illegal, is no longer an issue is to believe that unemployed Americans are happy to face increased competition for new jobs, thanks to the continuing arrival of foreigners. Also keep in mind, in these hard times, the increasing demand on public services, even as local and state governments have to tighten their belts. Immigrants will be taking these services. On average, according to the 1997 National Research Council study, immigrants use more in taxes than they contribute.

Finally, we might consider why we are in the economic mess we’re in. One reason is that the government pushed lenders to loosen lending standards to make home  loans more available to “minorities,” many of them immigrants. Lenders even solicited illegal aliens to take the loans. Providing the climate for this credit debacle to take place was the housing bubble, significantly sustained by a workforce of illegal aliens.

Excessive immigration and lax enforcement of our immigration laws continue to vex our country in so many ways. The media are working overtime to encourage us not to notice. Americans should not be deceived.    

2008 Elections – Amnesty Is Not a Done Deal

With Barak Obama as president of the United States, our country will have a strong proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens in the White House. But for that matter, the situation would not have been much different if pro-amnesty John McCain had won. 

 Obama has expressed his intention to legalize illegals in the U.S., now numbering around 12 million, and give them a pathway to citizenship. The president-elect even marched in one of the mass demonstrations that illegals held awhile back. Word of his desire has not escaped Mexicans and others who are thinking about breaking our laws. After his election, AIC supporters who live near the Mexican border informed us of a sharp increase in illegal crossings. Another source confirmed the same thing.

Amnesty and other benefits for illegal aliens, however, are not a done deal by any means. Despite the shift to the Democrats, the elections held a number of indications that Americans are as concerned about illegal immigration as ever. In Arizona voters decisively defeated a state initiative, Prop 202, to repeal much of the law that the state’s legislature passed against illegal immigration. Supporters of the measure had tried to disguise its intent, but voters were not fooled.

In Idaho voters elected illegal immigration foe Jim Rich (R) to the Senate. He replaces amnesty advocate Larry Craig. In Utah, Jason Chaffetz (R), who defeated arch illegal alien sympathizer Chris Cannon, won easily against his Democratic supporter. A big disappointment was the loss of Lou Barletta to Paul Kanjorski (D) in Pennsylvania’s 11^th Congressional District. Barletta gained fame and admiration among immigration reformers for his efforts, as mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, to pass ordinances against illegal immigration. Observers say that Kanjorski, an 11-term incumbent, won by  downplaying his past support for amnesty and claimed to agree in large part with Barletta during the campaign. That was a good sign, despite Barletta’s loss.

The Democrat majorities grew in both the House and Senate. But, despite support for amnesty by Democrat leaders, this does not guarantee success for amnesty—no more than it did two years ago when took control of both chambers. Some predicted immediate legislation after that to legalize illegals, but it didn’t happen because many of the newly-elected Democrats wanted to keep their seats. The outrage of Americans against the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills was a lesson not lost on them. And with difficult economic times ahead, amnesty will

President-elect Obama appears disinclined to put amnesty on the front-burner. He has indicated that that dealing with the economy will be his first priority after getting into office. This would give immigration reformers time to prepare defenses against legalization of illegals. AIC will lead the way, and we urge our supporters to keep up the pressure on your representatives and senators.